Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 March 19

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.

March 19

What percent of cookies are chocolate chip cookies?

This data would be useful to me, but I haven't found a definitive answer. I've seen a few websites claim that 25% of cookies made in the US are of the chocolate chip variety [1][2][3][4][5], but none of these claims have been backed up with a reliable source (as far as I can tell). Can anyone here shed some light on the issue? Thanks, Habstinat (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This 2010 graph shows Nabisco Chips Ahoy! as the top brand in American supermarkets (just barely), with $316 million in sales, but that's not anywhere near 25% of the total. Trouble is, it only shows the top 10 brands, leaving other potential chocolate chip cookies lumped in with everybody else. These 2011 tables show basically the same thing, although one lists the top 20 brands. Of these, only Chips Ahoy and Keeblers Chips Deluxe stand out as exclusively chocolate chip. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, but most cookie makers make chocolate chips cookies and others, too. StuRat (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The odds that a random object is a scone are about one in six. --Trovatore (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the answer to this partly depends on what percentage of chocolate a cookie has to contain to qualify as a chocolate chip cookie. From the evidence available, much of what is sold as chocolate isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is possibly the (unanswerable) question of the month. Nevertheless my original research (in the UK) suggests, after counting all the cookies in my local supermarket (maybe have a look in yours), the answer is 4.2%.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that include or exclude the ones that also contain nuts, and which therefore may not be appropriately defined as "chocolate chip cookies"? Also, are you including or excluding those that in the UK are commonly called "biscuits" - and, if so, are you including or excluding savo(u)ry biscuits - and/or those not found on the biscuit/cookie aisles but in the bakery section? I suspect that 3.94% may be closer to the mark. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, are you counting only cookies that are purchased in retail markets, or do you include those baked in the home as well?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

World Anniversaries

Where can I find world/International Anniversary days(ie. world poetry day, world water day, world earth day etc.)? Thank you.175.157.218.84 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

United Nations Observances list. And of course there is an article as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Apologies, clicked on the the wrong link while looking for Peter Snell on Mile run world record progression.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Young people's use of email

I get the impression, and this is not backed up by anything, that young people (however you want to define that age group) are not big users of email for social purposes. They tend to communicate with each other by phone, text, tweets and instant messaging instead. Are there any reliable statistics available on the relative use of different communications methods by young people? --Viennese Waltz 12:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a report by Pew Internet from 2010 that looked into this sort of thing, Generations Online, although it only covered online communication (email, social networking, instant messaging). Teens had by far the lowest use of email - 73% used it regularly, while the average across all age groups was 94%. However, slightly older young people, between 18-33, used email more than any other group, at 96%. They also say that when teens did use email, it was mostly for formal communication with adults, rather than with peers. Smurrayinchester 14:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That report is very useful, thanks. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This BBC report echoes the same thing - teenagers use email less. Despite the reports concern over whether that changes when they start work, I think it is almost definitely the case. In the places I have worked, email is the major communication channel, while social media is only now being exploited by the marketing team. Astronaut (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As for why this might be the case, I find emails better for formal communication, since you can take the time to rewrite, check facts, etc., just like in snail-mail. Phone calls and texting are better when the need is immediate, like trying to find somebody you are trying to meet. At work, the need for formal communication is higher than it is for children. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The bunch of 14 to 17 year olds in a youth group I help to run are not good users of email. They're also useless at Twitter, unreliable on Facebook, don't answer their phones, and don't reply to SMSs. Face to face...? The typical response to "Will you be at....?" is "Maybe". I just love it! HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that sticks in my mind is "Email is for old people": 88 900 Ghits, with the phrase used in the title of news articles from 2006 (at a glance). To check for confirmation bias, I then searched for "email is for young people", which got four results, only one of which was sensible: "Email is for young people to communicate with old people" -- and guess what, it was on Twitter! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And texting is for young people to develop arthritic thumbs before they get old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, on my smartphone my thumbs stay pretty close to their neutral position and barely move when I'm typing. I'll bet using a pencil would be more intensive. (Though I suppose on a smaller "flip" phone the thumb might be in a pretty unnatural position. You text one-handed on those, though, so you'd still have a healthy thumb!) APL (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Make up company?

I have a eye liner pencil with the brand name Emerge' USA Ltd. bought in the 1990s was this a make up company that no longer exists or did they name change or merg with another company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.224.167 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a rip-off of Fabergé. It apparently was a brand name of AM Cosmetics (I say "was" because they no longer list it on their website: [6]). Here's a resume of somebody who was assistant marketing manager for the Emergé brand, January 1998 – September 1998: [7]. I imagine she can tell you all about it, if you want to contact her. StuRat (talk)

Names for parts of a Norman Church.

In a typical English "Norman" style church like the one in the photo here, there is usually a square tower at one end (to the left of the photo), then a large roofed area in the middle and a smaller roofed area at the other end (to the right) with a porch-like entrance-way which always seems to be on the same side of the church no matter where the church is situated. This basic design is repeated in literally hundreds of these buildings - some of which have survived for close to 1000 years.

• What are the correct names for those four parts?
• Why is the part at the right of the photo almost always a little bit smaller than the middle section?
• Why is the entrance always on the same side?
• What is the usual internal floor-plan?

I'm amazed that I couldn't find a diagram showing this clearly anywhere in Wikipedia and that there isn't a "Norman Church" article - given that they are so common and so absolutely iconic. All we have is a list of such buildings in Norman architecture - with zilch in the way of discussion.

TIA 216.136.51.242 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know off-hand which article would be the best reference for all this, but:

• The tower is called just that - the tower. In later Gothic churches, it may also have pointed top, which may be called a spire or steeple.
• The long, high section is the nave.
• The lower bit at the eastern end is the chancel or sanctuary.
• In larger churches such as minsters or cathedrals, the tower may be further along, between the nave and the chancel. In many such cases, a transverse hall called the transept intersects at this point, creating a crossing.
• In some churches, especially French ones, there may be two towers, with or without spires, at either end of the west front (the end of the nave furthest from the chancel), instead of or as well as a crossing tower.
• The porch also called just that; it's generally, but not always, on the south side. Churches with twin west towers may have their main entrance at the west end, between the two. The north side rarely has an entrance; if there is one, it may be a staff entrance, and it may be considered unlucky. Legends often associate the north side of the church with the Devil. My personal thought is that this is because in northern areas, this door would always be in shadow. The east end never has an entrance because that's where the high altar is.
• The chancel is smaller than the nave so that almost everyone in the nave can see everything in the chancel. In many cases, there would originally have been instructive wall-paintings around the parts of the nave's east wall surrounding the chancel arch. A decorated rood screen might also be placed there.
• In larger churches, there may also be an intermediate section called a quire. In this case, there may be another, opaque, screen between the nave and the quire, with a nave altar in front of it. In monastic churches, this would be where the lay people heard mass, while the monks used the quire and chancel. Some churches have more recently placed their main altar west of the chancel step and/or rood screen, to facilitate the same close-up style.
• The usual floor plan is either linear or cruciform. The high altar is always at the east end, although in some cases another screen behind it conceals a Lady chapel, shrine or other smaller place of worship.
• There may be an ambulatory aisle around the outside of the chancel, giving access to the Lady chapel and other small chapels. There may also be a vestry or two in the corners between the transept and the chancel. These may have external doors for staff use.
• In active monasteries, the night stair was in the south transept, and led to the dormitory or dorter. Also on the south side were the chapter house, refectory, warming room, cloister, and any other monastic facilities.

This is all broadly true of Norman and Gothic architecture; the extent to which it's true of Romanesque, Neo-Classical, Neo-gothic or other styles varies widely. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! That's exactly what I needed to know. 216.136.51.242 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I think the best extant wiki article for this subject is Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Or our article on Church architecture, but it has to encompass all the various Christian church building traditions, amongst them the various English styles. A good webpage specifically about English churches is What to Look For in Churches. For a bit more detail, get a copy of Nicholson's Guide to English Churches, which your local library can probably get for you. Alansplodge (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that very, very few parish churches were built in their totality at one single time. Many were started in the Norman period or before, and then had bits added, bits knocked down or fell down, etc. etc. over many centuries. Most were radically reshaped, often in both the 15th/16th centuries and the 19th century. In some cases these reconstructions retained, and in other cases destroyed, earlier features. Each period of worship had different requirements, and the populations that they served declined in some cases or, more usually, grew. Parts of buildings built for one purpose were often re-used for different purposes. I'm reading an interesting book, A Concise Guide to the Parish Church by Richard Hayman (2007, Tempus, ISBN 0-7524-4095-0). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Alex already explained it all, but we do have an article on Romanesque architecture as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

how many deaths would be average?

out of a 1962 high school graduating class of 260 how many deaths would be average? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.13.82 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the Geographical location. If its somewhere in Denmark then a lot less than if it is say somewhere in the US of A.--Aspro (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want the average through 2012 in the United States, and if the class was well representative of the demographics of the country, the average would be, I think, around 55 deaths, 24 men and 21 women. Slightly lower if the class was all-white, higher if there were large numbers of minorities.--Itinerant1 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that high? And yet they say that Undertaking is a dying trade. Makes one wonder dosn't it -think I'll stay in Europe.--Aspro (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is that high? The person who graduated from high school in 1962 would be 68 years old by now. Their generation saw high rates of smoking, possibly as many as 75% of males and 50% of females in that class smoked. It is not uncommon for heavy smokers to die of lung cancer before the age of 70.--Itinerant1 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would guess that one death per a person would be average. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That joke was already ancient when Myron Cohen told it in the 60s. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You remember Myron Cohen? Mind you don't end up as an one of the exibits on Antiques Roadshow (U.S.) ( and if your still in good working order it could add to your value).--Aspro (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a Cohen classic.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, despite all the claims about the advance of medical science, they haven't been able to improve on that statistic – not one iota. --Aspro (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

But 7% of the people who ever lived are still alive, so surely only 93% of people die, right ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the joke, the assumption that just because something hasn't happened yet (the death of the remaining 7%) it will never happen. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd entirely agree on that. As Death and Clinical death attests to, some of the more traditional definitions or determinations of death no longer really work due to medical advances. So if you use these traditions of death, then a person can die multiple times thanks to advances. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Implicit in any reasonable concept or definition of death is "a state from which it is not possible to be revived". Hence, anyone who is revived was clearly not dead to begin with, despite appearances. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

With the possible exception of Elfego Baca. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

According to legend, he had 9 lives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That depends on what you consider death to be. Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you've ever spent an evening talking to an insurance salesman, you've got a pretty good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)