Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 13

Question on "Fire Department"

The paragraph that I will post on this e-mail is verbatim and I was trying to find out what agency of the Government is for the Fire Department: The paragraph posted here is rather blatantly obvious but there is no reference to any Government Agency. If the funds provided for the Fire Department are municipal, and if the Federal Government is responsible for funding the Fire Department through the State Legislature, what branch or department of the Federal Government is responsible for the Fire Department? Surely it's not the Olive Branch.

Here is the paragraph taken from Wikipedia ("Fire Department"): A fire department's jurisdiction is organized by the governmental body that controls the department, although there are private fire services as well. This comes from a municipality, county, prefecture, state, province, or nation type of government. The most common type of government control is at the municipality level. The jurisdiction size and organisation would be set up by a department or the government in charge of these duties. This deals with the placement of fire stations, equipment, and personnel within the area of control. Fire departments periodically survey their jurisdiction areas and use the data for redeploying proper coverage. This data comes from travel time, range from station, and/or a population survey. This brings equal service to the entire community and gives the department efficient places to launch operations.

Thanks for any clarification on this issue that the reference desk may provide me with. "Es31fish2fish (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)"

Why would the Federal (US) government have any jurisdiction over the fire departments of local cities? Do they also have jurisdiction over the sanitation departments? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the FG is pretty relevant in getting them out of the sh*t, so I'd say so! ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

—Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no federal-level agency in the United States responsible for fire departments, though FEMA may step in to assist local fire departments in emergency situations. The U.S. Fire Administration is a division of FEMA that, among other things, offers grants to fire departments that apply for funding, but USFA doesn't appear to have any direct control over local departments and serves more in an advisory capacity. It's also not necessarily true that funding for fire departments comes from the federal government through the state, as local governments (cities, towns, and counties) may raise the money themselves via local taxes or donations (especially in the case of volunteer fire departments). Of course, everything I've said is only true in the United States and I can't speak for the situation in other countries. clpo13_(talk) 17:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fire department is written generally, it does not only apply to USA. In the USA, an example of a federally controlled fire department would be the agencies controlled by the national park service. Here they say [1] "Currently 22 NPS sites maintain 49 fire stations, which are equipped with 68 apparatus (including 3 fire boats), and are staffed and supported by approximately 200–250 employees and partners." Many of those employees are employees of the federal government of the USA. Another example would be the interagency "Hotshot crews" [2], and that page lists specific govt employee statuses.

But when most USians think of "the fire department", they think of things like the San Francisco Fire department [3]. They are run and managed by the city, but municpal departments will often get special grants and funding support from higher level government initiatives. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In many U.S. states, Fire Departments are not organs of municipal governments, but rather are considered special purpose districts which are directly responsible only to the state. They may have names which imply connections to a local municipality, but such a name is merely a geographic convenience. Many special-pupose districts are deliberately coterminous with a specific municipality, but are not organs of municipal governments. --Jayron32 18:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Such districts typically have a committee of directors elected by the residents, so they're not "directly responsible only to the state". —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The OP's question begins with If the funds provided for the Fire Department are municipal, and if the Federal Government is responsible for funding the Fire Department through the State Legislature— It isn't, so we need not consider the rest of that sentence. Municipal funds come from taxes collected by the city. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe bonds too which might be logical during a recessional low interest period like the turn of the decade. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Importance of Texas

To the GOP. If it never voted republican again, could they still win an election without it? All things being equal, and they don't gain anything in its place. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not? In relatively modern times, the Republicans Reagan, Nixon, and George H. W. Bush all won elections by sufficiently large margins that if Texas had voted against them it wouldn't have mattered to the outcome. Texas's 38 electoral votes are important to the Republicans, but no single state is definitive. The last few elections have been relatively close, and so the loss of Texas might be determinative in that case, but historically we've also had elections that were total blow-outs, and there is no reason that can't happen in the future. Also, it is very unlikely that the GOP just loses Texas. By the time Texas is voting against them, it is likely that many other things have changed on the electoral map. It is easy to forget that the voting blocs and coalitions of today are not permanent. From 1872 to 1968, Texas sided with the Democrats in all but 3 presidential elections. Dragons flight (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As you can see at Swing state and Red states and blue states, you could work this out pretty easily. Just calculate the number of electoral college votes for all of the solid blue states; then add Texas to it. If that number is over 270, then if we permanently colored Texas blue, it would be highly unlikely for a Republican to win again. If the number is under 270, the Republicans could still take the White House by capturing enough of the "swing states". --Jayron32 15:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's the kind of thing I was wondering: if there were sufficient states with far less votes to outweigh the likes of Texas. I also wondered about California as vice versa  ;) ...and as for doing it myself... American politics = higher mathematics to the RoW :) Cheers @Dragons flight and Jayron32: for the info. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In the 1984 election, Reagan picked up every state against Walter Mondale except for Minnesota, and Washington D.C.. That means Democratic strongholds such as California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington state fell Reagan's way, which would be considered a bipartisan referendum. No candidate in U.S. history has ever achieved electoral success along the level that Reagan has. So conversely, as outlined above, if Texas fell for the Republicans, that usually means the candidate likely has no fundamental support in any of the other significant GOP stronghold states either, and we'd be looking at something similar to what Reagan achieved in 1984.--WaltCip (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, WaltCip- I thought Nixon had the greatest win in 197X? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, let me clarify by quoting the article - "Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate."--WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the 1972 election, McGovern won in DC and Massachusetts (giving him 17 votes as against Mondale's 13), and one elector voted for John Hospers, so Nixon's total was only 520 as against Reagan's 525. Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

California was often considered a swing state until the '90s. Remember that both Nixon and Reagan had California as their home state, and Reagan served two terms as Governor. Bush won California in 1988. Many commentators credit California Proposition 187 with sparking a backlash against the Republican Party among Hispanics and Latinos in the state, helping shift the state to the Democrats. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

CNN has an interactive electoral map here, where you can turn states different colours and it computes the electoral outcome. You can use that to game out various scenarios yourself. If we use that to turn TX blue, for the Republican candidate to win, he would have to take just about all of the "tipping point" states (as shown in Fivethirtyeight's map with black outlines). Fivethirtyeight's map also shows the changes either candidate has in each state (as calculated by their own model, which aggregates polling and other data). Right now (it changes several times per day) that gives Mrs. Clinton a 14.5% chance of winning TX, which is higher than Mr. Trump's chance in each of CO, MN, WI, MI, PN, and VA. Fivethirtyeight's little snakey infographic (about half way down the page) shows how relatively exposed TX is when compared to the Democrats' bulwarks of MI, NY, and especially CA. Texas' voting pattern is a lot more complex than its simply being a "red state" ([4]) and its is in a state of demographic flux - so the possibility of TX being in play, perhaps in 8 years, is not the psephological nebbishness it probably is today. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Texas has, even in the fairly recent past, had Democratic tendencies (just as California has had Republican ones). Ann Richards was a fairly leftist Democrat, and managed to win the Governorship in 1991, which admittedly was just before the Contract with America revolution where the Republicans developed a rather successful strategy that is the source of today's polarized politics. For at least the previous 100 years before, party politics was not strongly ideological as both parties were "Big Tent" parties that had confusing mixes of granular political groups. Both parties had a wide mix of right- and left- leaning politics for most of the 20th century, but Dick Armey's 1990s strategy resulted in the modern "Red State-Blue State" divide. So called "Conservative Democrats" of the former Solid South have largely jumped to the Republican party (the few hangers-on were known as the Blue Dog Coalition, but have basically petered out as a political force), while the so-called "Liberal Republicans" have also bailed, mostly joining the third-party Libertarians (see Bill Weld, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul). There was a time when the parties could tolerate wildly opposing political views within the same, now the parties have become tribal and ideological. The point on Texas being not necessarily "solidly red" is a good one. Throughout the south, largely due to the migration patterns of the last 20 years, many more former rightist strongholds are now "in play". --Jayron32 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that, aside from the current problems with the Trump candidacy, the Republican Party has a long-term problem with demographics:

1) Their primary base of support has been old, rich, white men. One demonstration of this is how, while the Democratic Party has advanced a young black man (Obama) and a woman (Hillary) as their nominees for President for the last 3 election cycles, the Republican Party continues to choose rich, older, white men exclusively (although Hillary is almost as old as Trump).

2) Ethnic minorities are increasing in the US, in particular blacks and Hispanics. There are some ways to keep their votes from counting, like voter suppression laws and Gerrymandering (not directly important in Presidential elections, but can set up a Republican legislature that can ensure the voter suppression laws are in place). However, those are just about maxed-out already, and the Gerrymandering might well be undone if Democrats elected on the anti-Trump wave are still in office during the next redistricting, following the 2020 census. As for the voter suppression laws, they seem to have about hit the limit there, too, as the courts are now striking down further attempts to keep minorities from voting. So, while these efforts have made a difference, ultimately a rising minority population will mean minorities have more influence on elections.

3) Older, more Republican voters, are dying off of old age. This means the Republicans have to win new, younger voters to replace them.

4) Regarding the wealth issue, Republicans may well be a victim of their own success, since by lowering tax rates on the rich and decreasing benefits to the rest, in the past, it's been proven that Trickle-down economics doesn't work to "lift all boats" (Bush senior called it "voodoo economics"), and they have reduced the number of middle-class voters, who were their support base: [5] (although some blame goes to free trade with nations like China, which was also supported by Democrats).

So, considering all these demographic problems, the Republicans winning an election now without winning Texas may be just about impossible. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Some additional references to back up what StuRat has provided already: Here is a good article on the demographics of the Republican party, from the Pew Research Center. Here is another from FiveThirtyEight.com. Hopefully, that will provide some context for what he's talking about. --Jayron32 17:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've provided refs from CNBC and Wikipedia. You don't consider them to be useful sources ? StuRat (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why, yes you did. I have amended my comments and apologize for misrepresenting you. I am sorry. --Jayron32 00:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider United States presidential election, 1976#Close states, the last time a Democrat won Texas. If all states had swung anywhere from 1.69% to 3.16% more Republican then Gerald Ford would have defeated Jimmy Carter without winning Texas. That was 40 years ago but as others have noted, things change and can change again. There is also the possibility that no candidate gets an absolute majority in the electoral college, for example because an independent or third party candidate wins Texas and maybe other states. Per the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the House of Representatives will then elect the president from the top-3, with one vote per state delegation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Medical equipment

Are the "Hartman 'Gnat' forceps" listed in Hemostat#List of hemostats the same thing as Hartmann alligator forceps? If so, they're not a haemostat. If not - do they exist? Nothing obvious on the first couple of Google pages. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they meant mosquito and not gnat? --Jayron32 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't find that (and it's not a misprint for "Halsted mosquito", the same site sells those forceps as a distinct item here). However, "gnat forceps" is still proving elusive - all I can find are instructions for the use of forceps in the preparation of dry flies. Perhaps removing the "Gnat" from our article will be sufficient. Tevildo (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A google search only brought up stuff that might well have originated from Wikipedia. There are no results from a Google Books search. Gnats are quite a bit smaller than mosquitoes, so I thought it might have a smaller type of forceps, but it seems not. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This report seems to indicate they exist, but that may have pulled said list from Wikipedia. Wouldn't be the first time. The telling sign they don't exist is that no one is selling them. Honestly, if it were a thing worth mentioning, someone would take some money from you for them. Since no one sells them, we can probably drop them off the list. --Jayron32 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the help. If anyone's interested, "Rankin forceps" are named after Fred Rankin, and "Mixter forceps" after Samuel Mixter. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for this possibly offensive sexual question but

All other things being equal would someone circumcised have more sensation if his glans was wider than the shaft? And possibly also with a scoop-like, lip-like corona glandis and wide coronal sulcus? Or would those "enhancements" desensitize quicker than the shaft until there's no advantage cause they stick out and take the brunt of the pleasuring forces? (especially masturbation cause people often do that at higher rpm then they could ever have sex at) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be surprised to hear this, but there is an incredible variety of serious research conducted on the penis, including thousands of papers published on sensitivity (e.g. [6]). A few minutes in google scholar got me to this article [7], which discusses altering the shape of the glans, and has some comments on sensitivity. It's closely related to your question, but does not specifically address it. If you look at the refs contained, forward citations, and punch a few other of your keywords in to google scholar, I think you'll get some pretty good information. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know penile science went into such detail! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently it's very important to some people. —Tamfang (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't science deal with it in great detail? After all this is the object of study of andrology and urology.Llaanngg (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not shocking sure but I didn't know the number of penile sensitivity papers is thousands.

I am very seldom surprised when the number of papers on any topic is in the thousands, let alone one of so much interest to people. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't search Google Scholar cause I usually get paywalls. I guess I should do it more often. Why are the cited by counts in regular Google search results so low though? I see decades old papers cited in recent papers. About how obscure before there's usually <1,000 papers? Heavy metal? Bat sleep? Fern taste? Sagittarian Milky Way 22:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sagittarian Milky Way: Number of citations is a classic heavy-tailed distribution. The vast majority of science papers hardly get a cite or two. A few of the rockstars get thousands of citations. This is the expected result of a network grown by rich get richer/ preferential attachment process. It's also highly field dependent: getting to 10 cites is far easier in fields with bigger markets. Bibliometrics is the general topic that includes citation structure in the scientific literature, and citation patterns themselves are also the topic of much inquiry: e.g. [8] [9] [10]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Often scientific papers are on the first page when the topic's too obscure for much else to exist. So 10 cites of a medicine paper easy, Cappadocian archaeology hard? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's about the shape of it. Same also applies to an author's total cite count. E.g. I have far more cites than my friend B, but our fields are very different in size, so who knows if my X cites is any more impressive than her X/4? If her field is 1/10 the size, then maybe she's doing better than me. But it's also very hard to define, let alone estimate, this "size of field" concept. Oh well. Very interesting stuff, but now a bit off-topic and on a stale thread too. Feel free to ask a new question if you're interested other aspects of modern science publication or bibliometrics. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Imagine the grant request: "We propose to first bring men to a standardized state of erection and sexual appetite through the following method: First they will masturbate until they have a completely dry ejaculation using whatever pornography they need to do so. Sex toys, dolls, and lubricants will be provided. They will then be monitored or placed in chastity belts for 1 month to make it likely that all have regained their sexual appetite and ensure they do not masturbate anything. We propose that during the month they'll be kept them from contact with significant others, exes and (as far as practicable) all stimuli of the gender(s) they're attracted to or of fetishes admitted in pre-screeching or documented in humans. This is to make the results less affected by the random variables of recentness of the last sexy memory and imagination ability. Then they will lie still in a sensory deprivation chamber for 10 minutes to minimize random brain stimuli-related variables such as whether they'll use recent memories of unadmitted or impracticably removed fetish stimuli (i.e. furniture) for stronger masturbation stimuli, and the effects of suffering and aborting the study in extroverts caused by too protracted sensory deprivation. A masturbating machine/erection strength measurer will then silently come out of the ceiling and grip their penis in as standardized a method as possible and bring them to their pre-measured maximum tumescence level with a slow, standardized motion profile and grip strength. The machine will then switch to a motion and grip profile resembling average sexual intercourse and the time from maximum erection to ejaculation measured. These times will be correlated with penile shapes after normalizing for age, testosterone level, sexual appetite and as many other variables as we can think of." Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone should include in a List of masturbation techniques (a red link that can grow to a stub) "Writing answer to one's own question at Ref. Desk." AllBestFaith (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

October 14

World Map

A flat "World Map" is sought with the capability of zooming (in and out) along with "time zone" and other sort of valuable information. -- 103.230.105.25 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the first Google result I get for "zoomable time zone map" - other similar sites are available. If it doesn't contain the information you need, let us know what that information is, and we should be able to find something suitable. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that any "flat map" of the world will be badly distorted. The exact type of distortions depends on the map projection used. One of the biggest advantages to a map on a computer is that it can be truly spherical, eliminating all distortion, and yet zoomable, unlike a physical globe. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Computer screens are flat. How does this affect the resolution? 2A02:C7F:A14:AA00:B9C1:49D7:605B:A265 (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your meaning is a little unclear. Computer screens are flat (or flat-ish), but it's the projection of the map itself that is the issue. When you load up, say, Google Earth it presents you with a globe, not a projected map, so the material is not distorted apart from glitches and the areas of incomplete data. But when you load up Google Maps in your browser and zoom out you will see it is a variant of the Mercator projection and it is very much distorted, particularly at the poles - you'll see that Iceland (~100,000 km²) is about the size of Texas (~700,000 km²). Same computer screen, but different projections make for different distortions. In this context, your use of resolution is unclear; resolution would only affect the amount of detail presented on the screen and wouldn't directly change the distortion either way (although seeing more of a projection at once would make it easier to see the distortion). See display resolution and optical resolution for details. Matt Deres (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So it's a globe viewed through a flat screen. How is that different from a stereographic projection? 86.147.209.235 (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

An image on a screen is not 'projected' in the sense used by map makers. A stereographic projection is just another kind of map projection, one that (from the lead of that article) preserves angles, but not distances or areas. You'll note that an image of the earth made using stereographic projection looks nothing like a globe. Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's true that viewing the entire world at once on a flat screen would necessarily mean it is badly distorted. However, flat maps of small areas are only slightly distorted, whether on paper of a flat computer screen. The difference between a single flat map and a computer screen is that a computer can automatically "reproject" it as you zoom in, to give a projection more appropriate for that location and zoom level (perhaps even asking which projection you want). You can get a similar effect with flat maps, but only if you have an entire book of world maps, such as with polar projections at the poles, and you still can't zoom in very far, except perhaps in a few special points of interest, or the number of paper maps would quickly exceed what would fit in a book.

Also note that there are curved computer screens. However, they are generally only curved in one direction (cylindrical) instead of two (spherical) and being unable to change the curvature means it doesn't adjust as you zoom in and out, but flexible screens can fix that. One interesting note is that the curvature of the screen means you are looking at the map as if you are inside the Earth looking out, but that works out just fine. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

October 15

List of oldest companies

Hi. I AM new to this, little confused, where and how to ask question or comment. Didn't find what I was looking for - missing entry - company called Sporrong, still existing and still kicking, estd. 1666, Sweden. Field should be probably misc., You find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.62.130 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an article on this company in the Swedish Wikipedia: sv:Sporrong. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline for us to have an article about it in the English Wikipedia. The oldest Swedish (and probably the oldest European) company is Stora Enso (1288), so AB Sporrong's age isn't really enough to make it notable without other evidence. Tevildo (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This is probably about List of oldest companies which doesn't have Sporrong (Stora Enso is listed as Finnish). Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did people bury pottery in the 1960s?

I live in England. I dug a hole in my garden to bury my dog and I found a load of pottery about 5 foot down. I cleaned it up and some of it was dated year of manufacture 1960. The house was build in 1930. I assume that refuse collection was a thing in 1960. So could you explain to me why someone who owned my house in 1960 or thereafter would have buried so much pottery 5 foot deep in the garden? Answer My Question, Or Else (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 July 23#Why is there so much broken pottery buried in every garden in Great Britain?. It's not clear what percentage of your pottery is dated 1960 or if it's the same type or from the same time. (If it is, then the link is perhaps not of much relevance.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are some possibilities:

1) Somebody came into possession of the pottery (perhaps by inheritance) that didn't care for it, and it didn't have much value, so they buried it all at once. If it's largely intact, that would support this theory, but they might also have smashed them in the process.

2) They kept an open pit there, and tossed in the pottery as it broke. It should all be broken if this is the case.

3) They buried it to hide it, say from somebody else that they didn't want to have it (like after a divorce). For whatever reason, they never retrieved it (maybe they didn't want it either, they just wanted to keep it from the other person). Could be broken or intact in this case, too. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's any chance you live in the London Borough of Hillingdon, is there? My grandparents bought a house there in the late 1950s and lived there until the early part of this century. My grandmother was... somewhat clumsy, and regularly broke plates, teacups, serving dishes, bowls, you name it. Then, for whatever reason, she would have them buried at the bottom of the garden. I don't remember them being five feet down, but I'm sure the ones broken in the 60s could quite easily have reached that depth by now, with a bit of garden remodelling in the meantime. Even if you're not living in my Grandparents' old house, Occam's razor suggests that 'getting rid of broken stuff' might be a reason for someone burying broken pottery in their garden. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An off-the-wall thought, but given that pottery got broken and the pieces were available, might some gardeners have then chosen to bury them in order to improve the soil drainage (as is still a common practice with plant pots, though apparently this doesn't actually work)? Originally the pieces would not have been as deep as five feet, but worm action and soil build-up over the subsequent decades would have increased their depth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

At this sad moment please accept our condolences on the loss of your dog. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wondering if this was an attempt to dig a soak away which was abandoned. As you have gathered, digging a 5 ft deep excavation takes a lot of effort and not something someone would normally do to simply bury rubbish. As the link (above) shows, in some places one has to dig deep to get through an impervious clay layer. Otherwise one just ends up with a hole full of water. (and even I would give up after 5ft and hire an auger). Your excavation that deep must have taken a good hour, so if you did it over more than one day you will have noticed the walls looking wet (if even if dug in summer) – due to the surface water on top of the impervious clay draining down. If there was any rubble mixed with the crocks that would add weight to the possibility. If it was close to the house or some hard-standing, and if the subsoil is heavy clay, then more so. Therefore, the original excavator may have realised that he had just a water filled hole that was of not going to serve its purpose and gave up.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My garden has a cache of laser printer chassis, buried about 4-5 feet down. Yes, it's a rain gutter soakaway. The printers were all the same model, from the same office, and were stripped to recover stepper motors or anything useful, then to separate the steel and plastic to different waste streams The chassis for these was a moulded plastic open box, two side panels and a frame between them. Wrapped in geotextile they make a decent rain interceptor. Milk crates have been used for similar purposes and just behind the house the new school has a vast stack of these things under its carpark as a SUDS system. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying to find a song by The Beatles.

It was something like:

It's difficult to say everything you want to say. It's difficult to see everything you want to see.

We are/It's all one world/word? (kind of more intense, almost shouting)

I suppose the text is not right, since I'm having trouble to google the lyrics.

--Llaanngg (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

All You Need Is Love? Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Without the right words, this will be difficult :-), but some to try might be And Your Bird Can Sing, All You Need Is Love, and Good Morning Good Morning. Some of their passages are broadly similar to what you've got. I've a feeling I'm missing something obvious, though. Matt Deres (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was conflating two songs. The first one is All you need is love, mentioned by Tevildo. The second is a different song. Llaanngg (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The second one could be We Are The World, but it's not by The Beatles and rather later than their existence (1985). I can easily imagine someone mistaking it for a Beatles track, though. For a genuine Beatles suggestion - It's All Too Much? Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the second one is "Instant Karma!" by John Lennon, youtube. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Viennese Waltz, I had already lost faith that I would get an answer. Yes, that's right, thank you.Llaanngg (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 16

tire width

I am trying to find out why some 2335/85/16 etc tires are only 4 wide in tred and others are 5 wide does it matter on a 3/4 ton truck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.112.62 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It could matter from an insurance point of view if you have the wrong tires and get involved in an accident which wasn’t even your own fault. Is this an older 'classic' truck inherited from perhaps an older uncle?--Aspro (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Links that may help are Tire code and Tire size charts. Since many factors in tread design for a given code are controlled by the manufacturer, look to reputable tire comparison tests to inform your choice. AllBestFaith (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Torquay King´s Garden

Does this garden stil exist? I estimated pre WW I. Am I correct?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you help us out by giving the location ? StuRat (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC) It's in the title! What part of Torquay did you not understand? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC) All of it. Believe it or not, Torquay is not a household name worldwide. I've now provided a link so everyone else knows where it is. It wasn't even clear to me that it's a place, rather than the name of a King on some Pacific island. And even knowing that it's a place doesn't tell me where in Torquay the garden was located. All this info would have been useful up front. (Yes, I could find it by research, but shouldn't the OP give us all the info they have so we can skip this step ?) StuRat (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Here's a thought: if you didn't understand the question and couldn't be bothered to research it yourself, why didn't you just ignore it and go and do something else? --Viennese Waltz 14:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC) I can't believe that there are many parts of the world unfamiliar with Fawlty Towers :-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Here's a thought: if you yourself haven't bothered to research the question, why don't you stop attacking other editors in front of the OP, and go do something else? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC) It's one thing to research a Q to find the answer, it's quite another to be asked to research it because the OP hasn't asked the Q clearly. In that case, it's quite reasonable to ask them for a clarification. We often get Qs like "How far is Main Street from Maple Street ?", and we could, in theory, find every distance between every pair of streets so named, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask which city they mean ? StuRat (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The garden still exists. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a recent photo from the same spot:[11] 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:45F2:2A:B116:86A4 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added the backside of the post card. I cant read the date stamp, only that it was posted in the afternoon. It looks like King George V.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for the backside pic you uploaded? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The clothing, especially the length of the girl's skirt, seems to me to be consistent with a date immediately prior to the Great War, so George V (from 1910) would be right. "The gardens were opened in 1905, by the Mayor of Torquay". [12] You may be able to narrow down the date by the stamp, although postcards could remain on sale for several years. The first stamps issued in time for the 1911 coronation are known as "Downey Head" stamps after the man who took the photograph. They were replaced in 1912 by the "Mackennal Profile" stamps which remained in circulation until 1933. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've just found your "Backside Torquay postcard" image - the stamp is a "Downey Head" and was issued between June 1911 and late 1912. See also Stamps on Postcards - a guide to dating cards. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If I'm reading that postcard correctly, it was franked on 14 September 1912. Smurrayinchester 09:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17

Dialing digits and calling cost

What could costs less? Dialing “0” or “+” first/before a whole phone number, when dialing in the same country or another? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This depends on what country you are phoning from, and whether you are using a landline or mobile phone. It might be simplest for you to contact your network provider directly. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it even make a difference? Sjö (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Help me get my head around the concept of dialing "+" —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See International call prefix which explains the technicalities of dialing "+" --Jayron32 20:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's years, if not decades, since this made any difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh? International calls are still quite often expensive and billed differently from domestic calls. Or were you being cheeky and making a point that many people don't make international calls anymore because they use the Internet instead? --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities envelope colour

When/For what purpose should you use a white, brown, yellow (and so on) colour envelope? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have articles on red and green ones, but not the colours you mention. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Historically, brown envelopes have tended to be used for official correspondence from governments, city councils, utilities and the like, whereas white envelopes were more for personal correspondence. See [13]. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I was taught at secretarial college many moons ago that brown envelopes were used because they are cheaper than any other colour! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Brown are cheaper, stronger, and used to be considerably cheaper as the paper is unbleached and an be made from wood pulp rather than rag. So were favoured for "official" correspondence, i.e. things that needed to be read, whether one wanted to or not. White's greater expense was justified if the sender wanted to encourage the recipient to read it. So a job applicant would write in a white envelope, be refused with a brown one, and accepted with either white or brown depending on whether it was a commercial or government role.

Buff envelopes were also used, especially in the USA, for strength. In the UK they were generally restricted to padded or extra-strong envelopes. One example is a multi-use internal post envelope, used within large businesses. As these were frequently opened and re-tied, and repeatedly labelled (they usually have a printed grid to addresses which were crossed out and re-written in the next space), these needed to survive a lot of handling. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities; paper folding

How/In what way should you fold an A4 (or any other kind) of paper when handing it to another? Beside, how should/could you possibly hand it to another? In what way(s)...? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A trifold is often used, as it allows one side to be hidden, ensuring a degree of privacy, if the writing is on one side only. It also fits into a common envelope size that way, for even more privacy. See [14]. Note that the folds should be parallel to the lines of text, and between the lines, if possible, to ensure legibility (ink right at the fold can be lost, over time). StuRat (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You ask how the piece of paper should be handed to another. Are you thinking of whether to use one or two hands? According to Etiquette in Japan, both hands are always used in that country, to show respect. Or are you thinking of something else? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

There used to be a convention in the UK that if handing a communication in an envelope to someone to pass on to the intended recipient, one left the envelope unsealed* to demonstrate trust in the intermediary. The intermediary might then seal the envelope in front of the recipient before handing it to him/her to show that this trust had been extended.

(* referring to the glued flap – use of sealing wax for routine business documents predates even my office training and practice.)

Since StuRat's trifold is a red link, I'll clarify that this refers to folding the paper into three sections, using two folds.

The OP's question falls into the category of Business etiquette, for which we have only a section under the article Etiquette, but this may point to other more detailed treatments appropriate to the particular cultural milieux involved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Formalities; pen colours

What colour pen should you use for what purpose? 103.230.105.24 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Black and blue are used for most formal correspondence. In accounting, black may be used to indicate positive amounts and red for negatives (see debits and credits). In proofreading, red is often used to indicate corrections, although other colors, like green, may be used by auto spellcheckers to indicate grammar problems. When using software with revision tracking, it may be helpful to use a range of colors to indicate change levels. However, due to the large portion of the population who are partially colorblind, it may be unwise to rely solely on color to convey critical info. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate what sort of revision-tracking software produces its output using colored pens! --69.159.61.230 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

see Google: here. 2600:8806:4800:5100:DD6A:D0FE:F6C9:448C (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's how to compare two version of an MS Word document using black for text and blue for changes: [15]. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the IP's point. The question was about pens, not computer software. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Many composers have used ink of different colours when writing their scores. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Green ink is the accepted colour for writing sprawling incomprehensible conspiracy-mongering letters to your local newspaper. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Green ink is commonly used by auditors in the UK. I wonder if there is a correlation? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As an ex-editor, I'll expand on StuRat's proofreading references. Manuscripts are preferably submitted to the publishers written/printed in black. (Yes, I have had to deal with actual handwritten pages of MSS before now.) The publishers give a black typewritten copy with corrections and amendments (and mark-up instructions) written in blue to the compositors/printers. The printers return the printed proofs to the publisher with any of their own errors they have already spotted marked in green.

After proofreading, the publisher returns the proofs with unspotted printers' errors corrected in red, and further amendments in blue. The authors will also be included in some or all of these stages, may spot errors and will make further amendments, and hopefully follow all these conventions.

The significance of the different colours is

(1) that all corrections and amendments should differ from black so as to be better visible and legible, and

(2) to calculate cost allocation: the printers will be responsible for the cost of correcting their self-spotted mistakes marked in green and publisher-spotted printing errors in red, while the publishers will pay for the costs of the blue amendments. If the latter are particularly numerous,

(a) the printers might make an additional surcharge, and

(b) if the authors are responsible for more than a contractually defined amount of proof amendments (such as more than 10% of the text) the publisher may pass on some charge for them (which in practice will usually be deducted from royalties when payable).

All this refers to traditional pre-computing publishing procedures using paper MSS etc., which is what I worked under. Doubtless the use of computer files, author and publisher compositing (misnamed "Desktop publishing") and so forth has introduced new or different conventions, but the OP was asking specifically about using pens, implying paper. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18

Polls

What's with the yuuuge spread among the various political polls this year? Even this close to the election, some show Clinton leading by double digits, while others show a statistical tie or even Trump slightly ahead: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/ If they're scientific polls, you'd expect them to be within about 5-6 points of one another, no? So what's the reason for this spread? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8085:B0C0:23E8:D579 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of factors at play:

1) Third party candidates may make a difference in this election. So, whether the poll is just between Hillary and Trump or includes the third party candidates may affect the outcome.

2) This election may change who votes and who doesn't vote. So, whether you poll all people, only registered voters, or only likely voters, you may get a different result, and figuring out who the likely voters are is no easy task.

3) As always, whether you look at popular vote or electoral votes, you may get different numbers.

4) Some of the so-called "scientific polls" may be cherry-picking results to favor their candidate. I'd look at real news orgs that have called elections correctly in the past, versus fake news orgs who tend to favor one party. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

But how can you tell which news orgs are reliable and which are not? Especially after such a (formerly) respected news org as Reuters got caught blatantly cooking the poll numbers! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8085:B0C0:23E8:D579 (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight has a reputation as a good site for meta-analysis of polling results, knowing which polls are good and which aren't, and compiling data from the good ones. --Jayron32 01:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know if the spread is any bigger this year than previously. In 2012, even one week before the election Ipsos (well-respected) gave Obama a 12 point lead while Gallup (also well respected) gave Romney +5. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that so? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Polls, part 2

A follow-up on my previous question: Just how does one deliberately skew a scientific poll? (I know precisely one method for doing this -- reclassify one category of respondents and lump it in with the one you want to artificially enlarge, which is what Reuters/Ipsos had done (they lumped in all the "None of the above"s with Clinton supporters) -- but are there others?) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy has some ideas. --Jayron32 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Weighting methods are mentioned there as a remedy, but they can also in concept be intentionally altered to mislead. AAPOR has additional info on poll weighting here [16]. Here's a recent story [17] about how the weighting proceedure of one poll has influenced its results. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• In response to Stu, Fox News has consistently been publishing polls with Hillary ahead, 5 pts today, and the LA Times has Trump up by two. But the only appropriate answer is that polls are not scientific, since they, (1) are not replicable, (2) are not peer-reviewed, (3) have "weighting" that is hidden (similar to climate science, where data is manipulated by a model to fit a prediction) and don't represent any actual entity. What matters is the results in the Electoral College and the House if it gets that far. All else is pretense. Dewey Defeats Truman. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

What area like this has the highest population?

It's in the developed world, possible to drive to from the biggest city in the nation but if you try in a 2WD sedan you have at most a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

Inspired by a dream: An Australian tour guide drove us to the start of a road at the edge of the suburbs. He said

• that's the only way for the town of 1,000 at the other end to reach the national road network

• there's not so much as a gas station, ranch, or mine in between

• the road quality's so bad a 2WD sedan has only a 50% chance of finishing it

• if you try it in a regular sedan you might die

and

• the National Coalition kept refusing their requests to make the road easier and this is why 28 million Australians are now run by Labor (implying it was so close that pissing off a village changed the outcome)

We got out and walked, it looked like they just plopped a several inch layer of asphalt on the nature, made the top smooth and left the edge exactly how it plopped on the ground. The smooth asphalt shrunk from 2 lanes to c. 8 feet wide and went from flat to hard for us to walk up. Beyond where we stopped it continued going straight up a 40° slope for what looked like a mile. I asked if it's like this the whole way and he said pretty much. I asked how long it is and he said a tenth of the width of the continent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You're asking for references to interpret your dream where there was an 8 foot wide road that was 1/10th the width of the continent of Australia? I'm not even sure where to begin researching such a nonsensical request... --Jayron32 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm just asking what's the largest population region of the developed world that needs a 4WD/off road vehicle to have a good chance of reaching from the "regular" road network. Where like a Corolla or Civic won't cut it (unless you like being towed out of mud or something every other time). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See the page guidelines, and find a web forum. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

SMW is clearly asking about a location meeting certain criteria, and any interested responder can supply locations that may meet said criteria, along with references. Nothing in our purview says OP cannot be inspired by a dream to look for certain facts about the world. All participation here remains voluntary, and nobody is mandated to respond with anything. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you cut and paste that "anybody who doesn't want to" nonsense from somewhere, SM? Unless you are going to post a link or a ref, then you don't have to unhat this "question", do you? μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You can look at Peninsula Developmental Road, or Cape York Peninsula for some out of the way places in Australia with not-the-best roads. Another road with 800 km of no-fuel is Tanami Road, but there are other ways to go to Halls Creek, Western Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)