Miscellaneous desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19[edit]

Does the UUA perform baptisms?[edit]

Suppose a person decides to join the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. The organization practically welcomes anybody. Now, let's suppose this person is vaguely spiritual, maybe leaning a bit toward Christianity. If such a person decides to make a commitment to Christianity, then can this person request a baptism to be performed before the congregation from the UUA even though the UUA does not perform ritualistic baptisms? And if the person has a child, then can the person ask to baptize the child in the faith too? Sneazy (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've linked to our article. Is there something else you are hoping for? μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the UUAoC's own comments on this subject to be enlightening:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... does that mean that the UUA withhold baptisms or not? Sneazy (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "withholding" baptisms; the article says that most congregations don't do baptisms, but instead have some non-faith-specific rituals or ceremonies for those who want them. If someone is hung up on baptism, there's a good chance they would find the Unitarian Church a poor fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the part on "instead have some non-faith-specific rituals or ceremonies for those who want them"? My interpretation of the article is that it means that adult baptism is not required for entry, and children have "child dedication ceremonies". Also, there are some controversies surrounding this organization, as noted on its Wiki page, that there may be some confusion of the name. So, the proper name is Unitarian Universalist, not simply Unitarian, to separate themselves from other Unitarians. Sneazy (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found you their website, and I gave you my own interpretation of their comments, which might not be totally correct. Feel free to look for a "contact us" somewhere on that site, and then you can go right to the source and ask the horse, and they'll give you the answer that they endorse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an Anglican, I would certainly recognise a baptism as valid (if irregular) if it was performed by and for members of the UUA, provided that an appropriate Trinitarian formula was used. Whether in its present form the 'Unitarian' part of the UUA's name precludes that is left as an exercise for those more familiar with the UUA as a movement. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Unitarian" is just an artifact title. The UUA includes pagans, most of whom would probably be polytheists which is about as far from Unitarianism as you can get. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Champions trophy[edit]

Why did Warner hit Root? What was his reason? StewieCartman (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one really knows, they can only speculate. According to the Guardian, "It emerged that Warner had claimed to have taken offence when he saw Root wearing a green-and-gold wig on his chin, thinking he was mocking Hashim Amla, the South Africa batsman; England sources say the Yorkshire teenager was merely joking about his own inability to grow a beard." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warner had, for some hours, apparently been consuming warm English beer, a beverage he's not accustomed to. It's very possible that he now has no idea why he hit Root. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teenager? RNealK (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's in his early 20s, but looks younger. Typical Grauniad. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's wondering, this refers to some off-the-field antics during the 2013 ICC Champions Trophy tournament, currently under way in England. The individuals involved are David Warner and the [blameless - all sides agree, not just English sources] Joe Root. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this font[edit]

Could someone identify what font this book is using, if it pleases you? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried WhatTheFont but it came up with an error. Give it a shot. Dismas|^(talk) 10:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's some kind of old style serif; perhaps Bembo. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good at this, but to me it looks like some form of Garamond. Cf. this. Note that in the sample of (early) Bembo shown in our article the dots of the i's are offset a bit to the right. Deor (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I could get with Identifont was Granjon. It's not quite the same, but is pretty similar. The article agrees with the above posters that it is a old style serif typeface based on Garamond. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As far as I can tell the book is from 1620; though maybe this version was printed later (but before it was stamped "Bibliotheque de la Ville Lyon, 1893"). Anyway, that might limit the range of possible fonts. Astronaut (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks remarkably similar to this example of the original Claude Garamond typeface, printed in 1592. The Q, a, &, ſ are all very good matches. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[reply]

Materials that can be powder coated[edit]

I am wondering whether titanium can be powder coated successfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.231.237 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to these forum threads. See also powder coating. Basically, if you can paint it, you can powder coat it. Tevildo (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amlodipine[edit]

Does amlodipine have a diuretic effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.76.234 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Amlodipine. As œdema is listed as one of the drug's side-effects, I think it's unlikely. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any good nationalist romantic novel?[edit]

Does anyone know any really good nationalist romantic novel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.223.231.53 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "really good" while bearing in mind that one man's meat is another man's poison. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to define "nationalist" - did you have any nation in particular in mind? Horatio Snickers (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of the Mohicans? RNealK (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Zhivago ? Certainly romantic, and I'd consider it nationalistic, too. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Whom the Bell Tolls and Exodus --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romantics tended to be classical liberals, tending toward socialists. Victor Hugo lived in exile in Jersey because of his anti-monarchical republicanism. Otherwise he would probably be your best "nationalist" Romantic, for example, Quatrevingt-Treize. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a bizarre juxtaposition of classical liberal and socialist, terms which are generally near-antonyms (though certainly classical liberals and socialists may at times have formed alliances against common opponents). --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but what do you want me to do about it? Romantics (and those called liberal in politics) did evolve from laissez-faire to socialism over the years as a way, they thought, to improve the plight of the lower classes. That's why you have to say classical liberal if you don't want to be taken as meaning leftist in the US and elsewhere. (Political terms nowadays are notoriously bereft of objective or etymological meanings.) μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you meant "tending" temporally? That wasn't clear. --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name for a directional sign post.[edit]

Can someone please help me remember the name for those directional sign posts with hands that point towards different destinations? I have been trying to remember it all day and it's driving me nuts. I think it starts with "man.." something.--KevinTR (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fingerpost matches your description - they often had drawings of actual fingers on them. Is this of any help? Tevildo (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I'm thinking of but I'm certain there is another name for it. Maybe just for the pointing finger or maybe I'm crazy. --KevinTR (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol ☞ is called a manicule. I didn't know that myself until now, but that might be what you're looking for. Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank You! That is what I was looking for.--KevinTR (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]