Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/M

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.

Question re UK tax laws

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Tevildo (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

Countries with a 10-year preuniversity cycle

How many countries do have 10-year preuniversity cycle? --112.198.82.19 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, The Philippines used to have a 10-year preuniversity cycle until the enactment of The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, also known as the K-to-12 Act, and that at that time the only other countries worldwide with a 10-year preuniversity cycle were Angola and Djibouti. We have articles, Education in the Philippines, Education in Angola, & Education in Djibouti.

I am rather confused by the phrase "10-year preuniversity cycle", as this article says that the old 10-year Philippine system required "at least two years of Kindergarten, six years of elementary education, and four years of secondary education." That sounds like a a twelve year system to me. Likewise, K-12 sounds like a thirteen year system. -- ToE 23:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really gross smelly poo (Does the human gut use fermentation as part of its digestive process)

Does the human gut use fermentation as part of its digestive process. Or is this activity only restricted to certain types of diets. It's hard to imagine a diet high in KFC and beef jerky. Whereas, what about someone who eats a copious amount of chickpeas and beans in their diet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:61.84.81.3 (talk • contribs)

Fermentation is part of the digestion process. Please read Digestion.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mayors ball 1950 -1951

Hello im am after finding information on how to find an old photograph taken in 1950-1951..I believe it was archived in bootle town hall,this photograph,was of the mayors ball,and contains an image of my mother attending the said mayors ball.I would be grateful of any information or help in trying to find the copy of this photograph.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.12.255 (talk) June 21 2015 15:54 (UTC)

Your best bet would most likely be Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council's library service (Contact details for Bootle library here). Local libraries in the UK collate records and other items related to their locality. Sefton are also building an online historical photograph repository which will go live on the 25th June 2015.[1] Nanonic (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget that this photo may have be achieved by a local news paper. Local news papers today love human interest stories. This is now June 2015 and your mother probably didn't give you her life's history. Yet today, a local journalist may say ah ; and volunteer to hunt through archives (that local journalists know how to do) to crate a human interest story. If you where to email (say) [2] giving what you remember about your mother they might realise that she did things that are of interest to its modern readers. For hints see:Tips of the trainer - human interest stories. The may even be able to link you up to people that knew your family. Discover your heritage. Don't delay - do it today. --Aspro (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector

What if an employer is hiring in the private sector, yet the revenue is insuficcient to offer minimum wage, does the US government subsidize the employees income? 78.144.252.84 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No: That would be a license to get the government to subsidize one's uneconomical, non-viable business. It would mean anyone could stet up a business to sell (say) snow to the Eskimos (Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit) (or Coals to Newcastle for British readers). Mind you, now that you have mentioned it, I could take a leaf out of Microsoft's book and license snow that I didn't invent -complete with a End-user license agreement …. Hey, that's a brilliant idea.!!! --Aspro (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if 100% of the salary and benefits for the employee were paid by the government. However, a "negative payroll tax" approach, where low income worker's wages are supplemented by the government, may make sense, as the employers still don't want to waste their portion of the salary and benefits by hiring incompetent workers for boondoggles. Meanwhile, the government may actually pay less to subsidize the worker's wages than if they were on "the dole". So, this would especially make sense in bad economic times, less so when there's a boom economy and any able-bodied worker can find a job. (The recent bail-outs in the US economy were criticized for sending lots of money to bankers and auto makers, but very little to those who actually needed it.) StuRat (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fittingly, snow arises from water vapor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an employer does not have enough revenue to pay the minimum wage, then hiring will simply lead the business to bankruptcy. So businesses in that position generally do not hire. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the issues of loss of jobs and disemployment discussed in a few places in our article Minimum wage. -- ToE 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice it's the fat cats who make that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a company is just starting and doesn't yet have much revenue, they may use seed money, venture capital, or personal savings to make payroll. If the company does well, they will hope eventually to have enough revenue to cover payroll and to pay back the loans. If a company is not doing so well, it may find it doesn't have the money to pay its employees. This is not uncommon. It may be possible to sell assets or to use the owner's savings or a loan to smooth over the temporary shortfall. If the situation proves not to be temporary, the company may have to shut down. Some information about this situation: [3]. If the company declares bankruptcy, employees may or may not end up being paid wages that they have already earned. --Amble (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

Nosy e-mail provider

Is there any wiki content or cites on e-mail providers other than Outlook.com? Outlook is very nosey and even asked for my mobile number, which creeped me out. 78.144.252.84 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Comparison of webmail providers. Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@78.144.252.84: It may be worth noting that Outlook.com, as with most of the popular webmail providers, offers two-step authentication. It's a security measure that combines something you know (like a password) [typically] with something you possess (like a cell phone). The idea is that someone can steal your password online, but it's far less likely they'll steal your password and your phone. That's probably why they were asking for your number. I think most privacy/security experts recommend it, but it's usually optional. The old balance between privacy and security, I suppose, but our cell phones are already about the least secure things we own anyway :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they actually call, or require you to call from, the cell phone, you can just give them a fake number. I try to give as much fake info as possible to people trying to violate my privacy for no valid reason. A favorite email address of mine to give out is NOYFB@NOYFB.com (None Of Your F'n Business). RadioShack used to REQUIRE that you give them your email addresses with each purchase, then sell it to spammers. They got quite a range of fake email address from me and I have to think this policy is one reason they are in such financial trouble now. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible blanket advice.

First, it's almost definitely a two-step verification matter OP is talking about. In that case giving a fake number, if the site doesn't have things in order, could be very problematic (but is most likely to simply not work).

Second, you're encouraging subverting communication systems using your own Radio Shack example but you don't know what systems people reading your response will actually be using. Their bank? The IRS? According to this, if you don't think the IRS will call you, just give them a fake number! Many places use a phone number to verify an account or verify a purchase, even if they don't call you. Perhaps more to the point, not all of them tell you that they're going to call, and some might only do so if there's a problem and they need to reach you.

Third, you're potentially having people have their personal information given to whoever has that fake number.

That's not to say I always give a real phone number myself, of course, and the odds are indeed low that any of this will happen, but isn't it best to just skip the unreferenced anecdotal workaround as though it can be generalized for everybody? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my "for no valid reason" caveat. Obviously your bank and the IRS (if you're in the US) have a valid reason to need your real phone number. RadioShack does not. As for email providers, there it depends. Is this a critical email account you need to protect or is this a throwaway email account you wouldn't mind losing ? In the later case, you really don't need to risk giving out your phone number. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss that. The problem is "for no valid reason" doesn't mean anything. The extent to which information is available/ready-to-hand concerning what, specifically, personally identifying information will be used for varies dramatically, so it's a big assumption that there's "no valid reason". People also have different senses of what is and is not considered "valid", making it utterly subjective. Beyond that, OP is also talking about email, and as I pointed out, it's almost certainly a two-step verification thing -- most people consider that a pretty valid reason. I just fail to see how connecting the question to what you like to do at Radio Shack is anything but detrimental. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the OP to decide what is a valid reason, not you. As for email, I already discussed that. If it's a throwaway email account you needed for a one-time use, they certainly don't need to know your real phone number. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP gave no indication whatsoever they were talking about a one-time use account, and even if it were a one-time use account, it's still bad advice. If it were a one-time use account and they were required to enter a phone number, it would still be for two-step verification. What do you think would happen if they used a fake number? The next step is receiving a message on that phone number.

The alternative, which OP is clearly already aware of, is to not enter a phone number or, when it's required, to seek out a different email service, not enter a fake one -- which, I'll add, is also rather obvious to someone looking to avoid entering their phone number, and it should be our role to explain the less obvious aspects of why it can be a bad idea, not just pitch the obvious idea in its obvious context (i.e. enter a fake number so you don't have to enter a real number).

There is just no scenario where that is helpful and only scenarios where it can present problems. It's irresponsible to say it's up to OP to decide what's valid (as if, as I already pointed out, people know all of the ways the number will be used -- which is very rarely the case), or in other words that it's up to them to make your advice beneficial rather than detrimental. You also didn't even qualify your advice in the original response. You just said "Unless they actually call, or require you to call from, the cell phone, you can just give them a fake number." -- no indication that there are things to keep in mind, that it might not be obvious whether they'll call you, that if an email service is requiring your phone number it almost definitely will be calling or requiring you to call ... just a Radio Shack example.

I'll leave it at that; at this point I'm starting to feel like I'm no longer writing for the benefit of readers and just arguing against Yahoo Answersing the refdesk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's mostly for 2FA. That said, I know Gmail used to require phone numbers (or possible a third party non free address, can't remember now) with verification required before creating an account to reduce spammers creating accounts there. I don't now if Outlook does that as well. I think Google may have abandoned this, at least I believe I may have created one without it but can't remember. Possibly it wasn't terrible effective in the long run since with 10 or 50 or whatever accounts per phone number and phone numbers probably costing a few cents in places in Asia and Africa, if spammers did feel Gmail accounts were worth it they weren't that much to create. Neither Gmail nor Outlook are selling it to anyone of course, or any other such nonsense. Incidently, many sites which very strongly encourage 2FA do have a skip somewhere, it's just fairly small and easy to miss and they may prompt you every login or something. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[4] suggests it could potentially be an anti spam measure but is only triggered when you push the limits. (Unfortunately one of those limits may be hit by an obvious first step with a new email address namely e-mailing contacts to tell them of your address.) BTW, one thing which doesn't seem to be addressed in the discussion is I don't believe Microsoft nor Google require mobile numbers. Land line numbers are fine. They've had voice verification for a few years nowadays. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servant of Two Masters Play

The following sentences refer to Beatrice's beloved cat, but I cannot find a reference to it in the script (google servant of two masters script to find several).

He is always complaining of an empty stomach, and always trying to satisfy his hunger by eating everything and anything in sight. In one famous scene, it is implied that he eats Beatrice's beloved cat.

I have searched numerous scripts, but since the actors of the Commedia made up their own dialogue, perhaps the author can provide a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_Two_Masters

TIA, 108.9.134.139 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Ron Tornambe[reply]

The information was added by an editor using an IP address, back in 2009. That IP address hasn't been used to edit here in six years, so I doubt you'll get a response from "the author". I'll assume you're correct, and remove the claim. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good database website that talks about lgbt books for adults that are non sexual explict

I found this great website http://www.leewind.org/ which is a great website for teens. It has alot of categories for example; Queer People of Color, Transgender Fantasy ect. I'm looking for a website that has a great database for adults. I am 31 afterall. Venustar84 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for fiction or non-fiction? This is the sort of thing (databases) I would call my local reference librarian about, they usually have lots of different ones at their fingertips, and with a membership you can often access those databases yourself. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a booklist [5] from the American Library Association, 71 books in various categories, published 2012-13. Other relevant resources and previous lists on the sidebar of the page. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for fiction. Venustar84 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping white spirit on bugs

I decided to do some informal experiments. I splashed a good dollop of white spirit. I found that both honey and bumble bees appear to stop working after having the stuff poured on them. Any idea why? Otherwise, woodlice seem to shrug it off without much bother.

Sadly, I didn't come across any slugs. That would have been particularly interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.177.118 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit is apparently a type of paint thinner, for anyone as unsure as I was. It's listed as a "central nervous system depressant", presumably for humans, but it sounds like it may have that effect on bees, too. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you might want to stop killing bees. See Colony collapse. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, you've clearly never done any DIY, if you're confused by white spirit. Anyway, OP, stop killing things! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a US/UK split. We just call it "paint thinner" in the USA mostly, though admittedly that term is less specific. Mineral spirits is another term that we hear far more in the USA. So for all I know Stu uses it all the time, just calls it a different name. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most insects have a film of hydrocarbons on their cuticle. Woodlice are not insects, they are crustaceans. My guess is that that has something to do with it. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their respiration systems are also different; as isopods, woodlice respire through appendages on their abdomen rather than through spiracles. That could be a factor as well. Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the header as a new way of dealing with one of our favourite regulars. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

June 23

Ejaculation

With the help of assisted reproduction technology, theoretically how many kids could a man father from a single ejaculation with the average number of healthy sperm cells. A few hundred thousand kids? Millions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.108.80 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semen_analysis#Sperm_count says 20-40 million sperm per milliliter. Ejaculation#Volume gives 0.1-10 mil per ejaculate. So you're looking at 2-400 million sperm per ejaculate. Probably not all of them are completely viable, and in vitro fertilization has a pretty low rate of success if considered on a per-sperm basis. So there's tons of variety and variables (e.g. semen quality), but I think "millions" is a safe answer if you're just thinking of it as a thought experiment (ignoring cost, logistics and other real-world constraints). SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the question assumes the use of existing technology. Let's say there are 300 million spermatozoa in a single ejaculation. Can current technologies divide that into "millions" of microscopic droplets of sperm and then successfully fertilize millions of ova? I doubt that existing technology could handle such tiny amounts of sperm rapidly enough so that most of the spermatozoa wouldn't die before getting near an ovum. Existing technology is optimized for the delivery of sperm from a single ejaculation to a single ovum, and even with a carefully planned effort, I doubt that it would be possible to expand the scale of existing technology beyond dozens of ova and therefore dozens of children. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semen_cryopreservation says you'd have at least 21 years to process a sample, possibly much longer. I interpreted the question as primarily being a thought experiment, and more about how many sperm there are per ejaculate, and not about the cost and time necessary to embark on such a project, let alone the specific details of IVF Oocyte_cryopreservation is also technically available, and would help out on the logistics.

Turns out the success rate of live birth from IVF maxes out at around 40%-55%. Reading In_vitro_fertilisation#Egg_and_sperm_preparation in more detail, it looks like they go for ~75k sperm per ovum. I suspect that could probably be reduced considerably, but going down to 1:1 would certainly radically reduce the odds of the overall process working on a per-sperm basis. So if you want a more conservative estimate taking into account more of how IVF is actually done, that puts us at about 1600 live births, figuring 300 million sperm, 75k per ovum, 40% live birth rate. If you want to further refine, they implant about 2 embryos on average, depending on age, but about 1/4 of those result in live birth of twins. So we can multiply 1600X0.75 to get 1200 as a more refined and more conservative estimate. It turns out 167,119 IVF procedures were performed in just the USA in just 2013 [6], so I think we'd have the resources to perform 12k from the same sperm donor if money were no object and we had a few years to work on it. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the group using IVF have selected themselves due to established problems conceiving; surely the number of sperm needed for people with more normal levels of fertility would be lower? Again, not 1:1, but the 75k level would seem to be partly due to problems most folks don't have. Matt Deres (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It's all about how much a realistic maximum estimate is wanted, vs. a simplified thought experiment. OP never clarified, but I learned something doing the research above, so I consider it a win :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any first nations rereserves in Burnaby or East Vancouver In BC

Please let me know. Venustar84 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of Indian reserves in Canada by population which have a population of 500 or more. A lesser population may have trouble getting reserve statues. So, I don't think we can help you here. It may be simpler for you to contact the Canadian Government. The Freedom of information in Canada should make this easy.--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a List of Indian reserves in British Columbia. None are listed with a location in Burnaby or East Vancouver. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a big map of BC reserves (on a Wordpress site at the moment, but originally from a federal government website), that shows a lot of reserves in that general area, although more towards Coquitlam than East Van or Burnaby. The 2015 Metro Vancouver Profile of First Nations also does not list any in Burnaby or East Vancouver. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Excuse me for asking this, but can anyone recommend any mystery books with lgbt characters in it?

Can anyone please recommend mystery books with transgendered/lgbt characters that are not too wordy, boring, or sexuality explicit or long? Venustar84 (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend Simon Raven's novels - they incorporate mystery, occult, crime, politics and LGB (though nor so much T) characters. They are not overlong, they are by no means at all boring, and most explicitness is entirely in the reader's head. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list from goodreads.com is called "best gay mystery" and has quite a few books. It's been many years since I read them, but I remember enjoying Jonathan Kellerman's books about Alex Delaware, which feature a prominent gay police detective. --Jayron 32 01:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Venustar84, check out Lists_of_LGBT_figures_in_fiction_and_myth, which I found at the great List of lists of lists. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting without fighting

Is there a form of fighting that to others doesn't look like anyone is fighting? Example, say some guy is an expert in it. He could beat up another guy and nobody would notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.70.50 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and you can read all about it here. Unless you need more training, of course.

Seriously though, not really. Fighting with poison comes close, but many still get sloppy and spotted. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Not the expert who knocked out Georgi Markov with a Bulgarian umbrella, though. Still might be out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ultra- and infrasonic weapons also come close. Can't hit what you can't hear! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Of course! My ex is a 4th Dan master of Silent_treatment. I never won once. 41.13.216.190 (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways of inflicting pain on someone without looking like you're hurting them, yes. Applying pressure to pressure points and joint manipulation are two that come to mind but what would be the point? As soon as your victim cries out or retalliates, the game's up. Bruce Lee used the term 'Fighting without fighting' in the film 'Enter the Dragon' where he tricks the antagonist into a boat then casts him adrift. He meant ways of avoiding the fight, which is something I suggest you practice. If you really want to beat someone up without anyone noticing, I suggest you wait until there are no witnesses.--Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was said of Gordie Howe that he could throw an elbow without anyone (or at least the ref) noticing - except the victim, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tripping and slashing were two other great sneaky penalties, before instant replay came along. If your eyes are on the puck, it can look like clumsiness on his part, or stickhandling on yours. Tripping still works fine like that, off the ice, but holding a hockey stick makes you conspicuous in most places. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

Capoeira is sometimes said to have been developed in such a way that people practicing would look like they were dancing, not practicing a martial art. At a quick scan I don't see that mentioned in our article, so maybe that's an apocryphal claim. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodent friendliness

Do any pets that are generally like rodents (though not necessarily scientifically classified as a rodent), such as hamsters, guini pigs, hedgehogs, rats, mice, ferrets, gophers, etc... behave in a friendly way such as dogs and cats? I have a very small 8x6 room. I am allowed one small pet, such as a fish or mouse. My experience is that all small animals bite and try to run away. They never reach a stage that they are happy to see you and want to sit in your lap while you read a book. I assume it is because they are not very domesticated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.15.144.250 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of them have the potential to act friendly, with some caveats:

1) They need to be raised with humans, maybe even a couple generations, so their parents don't pass their fear of humans on.

2) They are still wild animals, so I'd be very careful about now letting them near body parts you don't want bitten. A feature of wild animals is that they seem friendly then suddenly attack. The trigger could be all sorts of things, like you touching their food, hitting a sore spot while petting them, doing something they interpret as aggression, etc. Domesticated animals have had this instant aggression towards humans bred out of them, for the most part.

pet rat and pet mouse are domestic animals. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) I would avoid larger rodents, and the like, as they can bite off a nose, etc. Ferrets and animals in the weasel family seem particularly unwise as pets, since they are wild predators and large enough to do serious damage. (Cats and dogs are at least domesticated predators.)

Ferrets and other animals in the weasel family are not rodents. They are carnivores. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrets are by definition a domesticated, not wild, animal. They make splendid pets, but do need plenty of exercise. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need more than a 0% domesticated or 100% domesticated scale then. I don't believe ferrets have been domesticated nearly as long as cats and dogs, so the wild traits are not bred out of them as thoroughly. StuRat (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't "Believe"? This is not the "say what it is you believe and don't believe" Desk. This is the reference desk. Ferret#History_of_domestication has information on the history of domestication of ferrets. This article discusses the domestication of ferrets. This page also does. Before you claim whether or not the links do or do not confirm your answer, understand, Stu, this criticism has nothing to do with that. You're supposed to provide people with references here. Even a blind dog hits the tree once in a while, it doesn't mean that your actions are correct here. We're not here to answer people's questions. Where here to give them references. Do that. --Jayron 32 02:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the dog, cat, and ferret articles. Each lists how long they have been domesticated. Cats and dogs have been domesticated far longer. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I just said (where a predator is a type of carnivore) ? StuRat (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction between carnivore (eats meat) and Carnivora, the taxonomical order. Mustelids (weasel-like animals) are a family in order Carnivora, and not part of order Rodentia. Though most carnivores (members of Carnivora) are carnivores (meat eaters), they don't have to be - for example, see the Giant Panda. Likewise, rodents are not in the order Carnivora, though some are meat eaters. I'm guessing Robert McClenon intended to link Carnivora, rather than simply carnivore. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) Note that what we interpret as friendliness may just be keeping warm, looking for food, etc. If they think you have something they can use, they may sidle up to you.

5) Something else you need to know about rodents is they have no bowel or bladder control, they just pee and poo wherever they are at the time. So, not a good pet to let out of the cage if you want to keep your room clean.

That's not really true in general. Many rats essentially self-train themselves to only excrete in one portion of their cage [7] - it's partially instinctual. Here's a wikihow on the topic [8], here's another guide [9]. There are literally hundreds of people discussing how easy it is to litter train a rat - just search /rat litter train/ or /rat potty train/ to find many, many more sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't help but see Fry saying "The corner. Why didn't I think of that?" 199.15.144.250 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birds seem to form closer bonds with humans, but there the noise is an issue. There are mute swans, but they are too large and not completely mute. Finches and doves are typically less noisy. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm 8 by 6 is small? That's a pretty damn big room! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Oh hang on, you mean feet I guess? I wish people that use obsolete units would specify them! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Hey, maybe it was centimeters! That'd be pretty small. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a coincidence that 8x6 feet is the dimensions of a 2-person cell in many U.S. Federal prisons? 209.149.113.97 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that some of those are essentially not domestic animals, and make poor pets if what you're looking for is companionship. But the pet rat surely is fully domesticated, and they are quite intelligent and endearing (to some). Rats can indeed be very friendly, I have known people that sit and watch TV/read a book with their rat on their shoulder or lap. Some people even carry them around town in a pocket or hood search google images for plenty of examples. Cute overload has rat features fairly often, showing many rats being cute and friendly, e.g. here [10]. You might also enjoy reading through some pet rat fora like these [11] [12] [13]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some videos of rats "bruxing" and "boggling" [14], which are behaviors generally interpreted to be sort of like a cat's purr - pet rats do it when they are feeling content/affectionate [15] [16]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't those people get rat pee and poo on them ? StuRat (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Have you ever interacted with a pet rat? I assumed you must know a lot about them since you typed up a few hundred words about rodents as pets (but you didn't include any references, and got many "facts" wrong, so...). See my links above. Generally rat prefer to (almost) always go in the same place, and generally that's a corner of their cage. And many people further litter train their rats for easier cleanup. Even if a rat does defecate on your lap now and then, it's not a big deal. It's small, hard pellet that doesn't really stick to anything or smell much [17]. A rat might not make a good pet for you but many many people think they're great. It's not like cat and dog owners never have to deal with an occasional accident either, but most people who actually want a pet don't mind that as a part of the cost of entry. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Many facts wrong" ? I don't see "many". I had previously specifically asked about rodents here, and I don't recall anyone saying any had the ability to hold it in. And your "sources" don't look like reliable sources to me, more like blogs. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a document released and endorsed by legitimate veterinarian on how to litter-train rats. Here is another one. Here is a published book on the care of rats that describes how to litter train them. A pet rescue group which documents how to car for rats, including a section on litter training. Are you even trying to research your answers before you present them, StuRat, or do you just write whatever your notions are and claim their rightness solely on the fact that you feel it or think it? --Jayron 32 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

How long is it before global warming results in the navigability of the Northeast Passage? 2.96.215.80 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on many factors:

1) They might be able to occasionally send a ship that way now, at certain times of year, if the weather and wind direction is right. However, it's hard to run a shipping company based on such uncertainties. Getting your cargo stuck in the ice until next year would be very bad for business, and even worse if the ship sinks.

2) Soon there may be a shipping season when it's safe to send ships that way.

3) It would be a very long time before the passage would be clear year round, if it ever happens.

Also note that ships would require some infrastructure, like ports where they can put in for fuel, repairs, supplies, etc. and emergency rescue ships and helicopters. There's a chicken and egg problem here that nobody wants to risk starting a shipping route without those things, and nobody wants to pay for that infrastructure before there is a demonstrated demand for them.

Then there's the political considerations that it may not be wise to send ships so close to Russia, given it's current aggression. They might decide to seize some ships as a bargaining chip in negotiations for Ukraine, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get all that information from, StuRat? I'm assuming that none of it is just your own personal opinion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if StuRat is going to present complex answers to complex questions, he should at least present a link to something where we can check the validity of an answer. An unreferenced answer is less useful than no answer at all, as we have no way to verify it. --Jayron 32 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that info is in the article the OP already linked to. I didn't see any point in repeating the link. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you have at least said that up front, knowing that the desk has little tolerance for what looks like unreferenced opinion, and that you have been called on this very issue many times? Also, if "much" of the info is from that article, that still leaves the rest unaccounted for. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The northern route was used when the USSR kept it mostly clear. There is no technical reason it couldn't be clear now since it has far less ice than it used to have. Most ports along it are abandoned, so the only immediate interest would be to get cheap Chinese goods to Europe a couple days faster than taking the current route. The current route also hits expanding suppliers of cheap goods. If Africa were to stabilize, the southern route would be even more worthwhile. Ships would pick up goods every day from China to Europe. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rather comprehensive article indicates that the route is already essentially open, for one staying close to the Arctic shore of Russia, at least the map seems to indicate that. It also notes that, while forcasting is difficult, trends seem to indicate an "ice free Arctic" is possible "in 20-30 years", as the current trends in minimum Arctic sea ice actual are decreasing faster than the last major comprehensive predictive study was done in 2007. --Jayron 32 20:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP could you be more specific? Ships navigate through the Northeast Passage now (and historically), according to our article. Do you mean year-round? Easily navigable? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mean year-round. 2.96.215.80 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to predict future climates with any certainty. There are too many variables, not least economic or cultural changes that would affect human activity and the rate of change in greenhouse gas concentrations. The further into the future a climate model is run, even under set scenarios for, say, human activity, the more uncertainty there is in the model's predictions, just because no model can incorporate all of the variables that affect climate. (See butterfly effect.) That said, existing climate models do not predict an ice-free Arctic in the winter at any point during this century. An ice-free Arctic in the winter would imply a climate shift of such magnitude that it would be catastrophic—so catastrophic that civilization and even perhaps the survival of humanity would be at risk. An ice-free Arctic winter would imply the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and probably at least of the West Antarctic ice sheet, if not all ice in Antarctica. That, in turn, would imply a sea-level rise that would inundate all land lower than 68 meters above present sea level. [18] That would include most of the world's largest cities. There is some concern that that degree of warming could set off a clathrate gun, which in turn could cause an extinction event similar to the Permian-Triassic extinction event. [19] In this case, the possibility of shipping through the Arctic year round would be outweighed by the fact that there would be nobody to send or receive the shipment. Marco polo (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete reference/citation.

I am doing legal research and need help verifying a quote.

In this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Pride_March_(New_York_City), there is this quote: "Reporting by The Village Voice was positive, describing 'the out-front resistance that grew out of the police raid on the Stonewall Inn one year ago'.[21]"

The reference for this quote is LaFrank pg.20. I cannot verify this quote, nor can I locate the original Village Voice article that supposedly contains it. Is there any way to track down whoever edited the quote into the page and ask them for their complete reference? ie. Article title, author etc.

Please let me know ASAP.

Thanks, Ella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.24.210 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the quote brought me to this result on Google Books. Dismas|^(talk) 22:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that too. However the "205" superscript does not refer to any part of their bibliography, and the book is also written by Wikipedians. The citation is still incredibly unclear, and I still did not find Village Voice named among the book's references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.24.210 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 June 2015‎

@Dismas: It is not surprising that a search for a quote used on Wikipedia returns a book comprising Wikipedia articles :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Yeah. Not one of my smarter moments. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It looks like someone borrowed the ref from the Stonewall riots page, where there is a citation to LaFrank with a broken link. A search for that document turned up another pdf copy here. The Village Voice piece is references is '"A Week of Gay Pride," Village Voice June 25, 1970.' I went ahead and updated the URL on the Stonewall page and added it to the Pride March page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death row and serious illness

In the United States of America, what would happen if a prisoner due to be executed had a serious, terminal or life threatening condition. Would they just deny treatment and let them die because they are on death row anyway. Or would they give them the same level of medical care as a non prisoner might expect, in the hope of prolonging their life sufficiently so that their sentence can be carried out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.255.65.24 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would likely violate the Hippocratic Oath and other medical ethics in terms of inaction causing harm. Additionally in the US at least there must be an execution warrant that authorizes the execution and makes it legal. As such, simply knowingly letting the sick condemned die would likely be negligent manslaughter at least. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the possibility of a reprieve, so letting them die would be bad for that reason, along with all the others. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were allowed to die of the affliction, there would likely be some sort of legal case brought against the state for allowing the prisoner to suffer cruel and unusual punishment. Especially if they were in pain due to whatever illness it was. Dismas|^(talk) 02:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A natural death would be cruel and unusual punishment, but being murdered isn't? I never cease to be amazing by death penalty logic. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I never cease to be amazing". May I please borrow that? I have many uses for it. Seriously. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Sometimes even untreatable natural death is too cruel for people sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison. So the prison compassionately lets them out to die. When it doesn't happen soon enough, the compassion wears thin. That whole case is nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

See Capital punishment in the United States, particularly the section Capital punishment in the United States#Legal process. By law, a sentence of death in the US triggers a series of automatic reviews and appeals during any of which the prisoner's sentence may be overturned or reduced (to e.g. life in prison). Even after all appeals are exhausted, there is still the possibility of a last minute granting of clemency or commutation of the death sentence. There is also the possibility of exoneration if a judge finds the prisoner was wrongly convicted. Allowing a prisoner to die by refusing to provide medical treatment would deprive him of his rights under the law. Also, the warden/corrections officers/etc. are just there to run the prison, not to decide who lives or dies by giving/withholding medical treatment and, as RegistryKey points out above, contributing to a prisoner's death before the execution warrant is issued would result in an extralegal death and most likely be a prosecute-able offense.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, prisons (should) take pains to prevent suicide and self-harm by prisoners, even those who on death row or serving life sentences. They don't always succeed. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: he would be treated just like any other, normal (non-death row prisoner), up until the date of his execution, when he would be executed. So, let's say he got sick on January 1st and his execution date is set at October 1st. From January 1st to October 1st, he would receive medical treatment for his ailment. Then, on October 1st, he would be executed. Of course, there are many variables and legal complexities. But, that is the short answer. He is treated just like every other prisoner until it comes his time to be executed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

How comprehensive are Wikipedia's lists of aviation accidents?

Hi,

I'm trying to match a vague description of a recent plane crash in which "many [but not all] people were killed" to the ones listed here (Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015, Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015), but there's definitely nothing fitting the given places and times. Are there circumstances under which an event resulting in "many" deaths wouldn't appear in those lists - like, if it was a private or otherwise non-public flight, or if it happened someplace with dubious news coverage, or...? TIA.

176.2.74.134 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation Safety Network record a lot of aviation incidents. This page contains all incidents that they have recorded for 2015. The articles in the category and template you have mentioned will only reflect articles that have been created here. Hack (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a 2015 in aviation which will have some more minor incidents we don't have articles on although also other stuff unrelated to accidents/incidents. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Still coming up dry, but those two listings certainly do provide far more meticulous coverage. Thanks, both! :) - 176.0.39.211 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The categories will only have incidents we have articles on. This would require they are WP:notable and someone has written about them (and they will have to have been properly categorised to appear in the category). Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Murdoch political influence

Is there any information on what effect that Rupert Murdoch, and his media empire have had either directly or indirectly in politics / public opinions. Especially in Australia, US and UK. Any studies or scholarly information would be ideal.

I personally hope the earth swallows that POS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.55.86 (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly recent book on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much older and journalistic rather than scholarly, but was well known at the time, is Horrie and Chippendale "Stick it up your punter", the history of Murdoch's Sun newspaper in the UK. (I see there's an updated version on Amazon.) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always liked Mike Royko's quote: "No self-respecting fish would be wrapped in a Murdoch newspaper." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish prominence

According to Adherents.com Judaism is only the 14th largest religious grouping in the world. Yet the large number of google returns on content related to world religions indicates that journalists and publishers give it the prominence of the world's 3rd or 2nd largest religion. Why do journalists enjoy covering Judaism so unduly and undeservedly? 84.13.31.195 (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you stopped beating your wife? DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Google result counts are a meaningless metric". [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism is a complex business. There are two customers: The readers and the advertisers. For the readers, the product is media content. They purchase the media content with actual currency or by submitting themselves to advertising. For the advertisers, the product is consumer attention. They purchase advertising primarily with actual currency based on the number of consumers who will likely be shown the advertisement. In the end, the media content that gets the most viewers is the most profitable. It is further complicated by the advertisers. If the media can be aimed at a specific demographic, then certain advertisers will pay more for the privilege of targeting advertising. The end result, attempting to use an example that is far from your religion example, is that television shows will blatantly target a certain demographic. Home decorating shows represent the world as being nearly 50% gay and lesbian. That isn't a realistic portrayal of the world, but it targets a demographic that the advertisers pay more to target. It is purely about money, not about a stance that the producers have about sexual choice. Relating this to religion, it is obvious that the media you are perusing is targeted at a Jewish population. Why? The advertisers pay more to target that audience. Again, it is all about money. It is not about a stance that the producers have about religious choice. 209.149.113.97 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhatted question after a ridiculous accusation of anti-Semitism. The question is phrased awkwardly, but is valid, answer about is informative. Fgf10 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google searches on the names of 5 major religions and the adjective used to refer to that religion or its adherents (Christianity/Christian; Islam/Muslim; Hinduism/Hindu; Buddhism/Buddhist; Judaism/Jewish). In fact, Judaism came in third, just edging out Buddhism. This is not just about money, but it is about the audience. Searches on these terms are overwhelmingly going to bring up English-language content. In the English-speaking world, Christianity is the most widely practiced religion. No surprise that it gets the most Google hits. Probably Islam is the second most widely practiced religion, especially if we include a percentage of speakers of English as a second language (since second-language speakers will not use English webpages at the same rate as first-language speakers). It gets the second greatest number of hits. In the English-speaking world, Judaism is pretty clearly either the second or third most practiced religion. So it is not surprising that it gets the third highest number of hits. Anything else would be surprising. English-language journalism faces a similar audience and will therefore have a similar distribution of content. I suspect that if I searched on Baidu in Chinese, Buddhism and Taoism would get more hits than Judaism. Beyond this, even among speakers of other Western languages, there is a fascination with Judaism because, until the Holocaust, Jews were an important minority in many European countries where English is not the national language. They remain a large minority in France. Judaism is part of the cultural heritage of the West. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One way to think of it, without assigning some perjorative word like "undeservedly", is note that Judaism, since the Jewish diaspora, had primarily been concentrated in European countries for thousands of years, and Europeans took their Jewish people with them when they colonized the rest of the world. The hegemony, broadly speaking, of European culture since the 17th century means that all aspects of European culture have been exported worldwide, and that includes its minority religions such as Judaism. It isn't specifically Judaism which is represented in world culture out of proportion with its historic population. It's also European languages (Spanish, Portuguese, and English are spoken by many-times-over more people than currently live in Spain, Portugal, and England), European foods, music, language, religion, and other aspects of culture have all been exported worldwide, and all are "overrepresented" relative to the population of Europe. Judaism is part of that, not distinct from it, and there is nothing particularly insidious about it as the tone of the OP would indicate they believe. It is just an understandable consequence of history, and easily explainable once one understands the context. --Jayron 32 01:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious point is that when discussing the two largest world religions, Christianity and Islam, it is inevitable that Judaism will also be discussed from time to time, given the part it played in their historical origins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Google search results are an utterly meaningless metric for subjects with more than a few hundred hits. The search engine counts a sweeping work covering the history and culture of the jewish religion equally with a joke about the catholic, the protestant and the jew who...etc. It counts dictionary entries, crossword puzzle clues, idiot posts from holocaust deniers, spammers...all with equal weight. The count tells you absolutely nothing about the prominence of the religion. SteveBaker (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower (what design was 2nd to the tower?)

What design finished second to the Eiffel Tower selection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.137.49.146 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding any reference except: ".. on 1 May (1886) Lockroy announced an alteration to the terms of the open competition which was being held for a centerpiece for the exposition, which effectively made the choice of Eiffel's design a foregone conclusion: all entries had to include a study for a 300 m (980 ft) four-sided metal tower on the Champ de Mars." [21] So possibly the others were non-starters. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The present structure was chosen from 107 entrants to the design competition, but it's not clear how they were ranked. We do know that the committee that made the decision did so unanimously. Hence, there may not have been a second place. Imagine (for example) if each of the members simply voted for their favorite design. If that was how it was done, Eiffel's design got all of the votes and the other 106 designs tied for second place with zero votes each. Of course it may have been more nuanced than that - but with such a clear winner, the issue of who came second may have been of so little importance that the placing of the other designs may have been ignored, forgotten, or perhaps never made public.

If the link above is correct, none of the other entries might have complied with the amended competition rules. 09:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In the 1975 book The Tallest Tower: Eiffel & The Belle Epoque, Joseph Harriss writes that the design competition was announced on May 2, 1886, and required entries to be submitted by May 18. Architects "were invited to 'study the possibility of erecting on the Champ de Mars an iron tower with a base 125 meters square and 300 meters high. If they consider it desirable they may present a different design without such a tower.' Despite the admissibility of designs omitting a tower, it was clear that Lockroy wanted one." The designs were publicly displayed for 3 days and reviewed by the committee for 5 days more, and then "winners of the twelve prizes, ranging from $800 to $200, were announced."

Harriss goes on to describe some of the other designs that were considered, and includes a page with thumbnail drawings of 10 of them. But he doesn't say which if any of them won the other 11 prizes. So, so far we know that it wasn't a 106-way tie for second, but we don't have an answer to the question. (The other designs, by the way, included one in the form of a gigantic garden sprinkler, one in the form of an immense guillotine, one that would have straddled the Seine instead of being on the south side, and one with a giant light at the top to illuminate the entire city.) --70.49.171.136 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Eiffel Tower vs. the air

(My favorite Eiffel tower factoid is that the entire iron structure weighs less than the volume of air it encompasses!)

SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} for that factoid. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà, from the official Eiffel Tower website. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not what SteveBaker said, but still impressive. I checked the factoid in the PDF and it seems correct if you count only the 7,300 tons of the metallic structure. Based on 0.0807 lbs per ft³ of air.[22] (Actually I computed for a rectangular box instead of a cylinder; I don't know the math for a cylinder; but a cylinder would be more air, making the factoid even more true.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... less air for a cylinder? ... so the tower will weigh something like three times the weight of the air it encompasses. I'll leave the accurate calculation for someone who knows the exact shape of the tower. Dbfirs 11:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's easy to see that if a circle is circumscribed around a square, the sides of the square are √2 times the radius of the circle and therefore the circle has π/2 times the area of the square. Therefore the cylinder mentioned on site cited by Clarityfiend is larger than the box used by Mandruss, by the same ratio. Specifically, the volume of a box 300 m high and with ends 125 m square is obviously 300×125² = 4,687,500 m³, while a cylinder circumscribed around this box is π/2 times that volume, or 7,363,100 m³.

The simplest way to estimate the volume of the convex hull of the tower itself is to ignore the curvature of the verticals and treat it as a series of three truncated square pyramids: one from the ground to the first deck, one from the first deck to the second, and one from the second deck to a height of 300 m, representing the top of the main structure above the third deck. Then we just use the formula V = (1/3)(a² + ab + b²)h three times.

The relevant dimensions are given on page 1 here. Note that for the three decks they give the area rather than the side length, so that's a² or b² in the formula rather than a or b. So, in metric, the calculation is:

1/3 × (125² + 125 √4,415 + 4,415) × 57
+ 1/3 × 4,415 + √4,415 × √1,430 + 1,430) × (115 − 57)
+ 1/3 × (1,430 + √1,430 × √276 + 276) × (300 − 115)
= 538568 + 161581 + 143945
= 844,100 m³

So the rectangular box has about 5.6 times the tower's actual volume, and the cylinder about 8.7 times.

Now, Harriss gives the mass of the tower's iron structure as 7,341,214 kg, which, if the "tons" are metric tons, agrees with the figure of "7,300 tons" on both the page cited by Clarityfiend and the one cited by me. For the total weight, those pages give 10,100 tons while Harriss says 8,564,816 kg, but perhaps this difference represents changes made since Harriss wrote the book. I'll go with 7,341,000 and 10,100,000 kg for the two weights.

Then the average density of the tower according to which weight and volume calculation you select, is any of:

Density of the tower or a circumscribed volume, in kg/m³
Based on...	Structural weight	Total weight
Circumscribed cylinder (7,363,100 m³)	0.997	1.372
Circumscribed box (4,687,500 m³)	1.566	2.155
Estimated actual volume (844,100 m³)	8.697	11.965

So how does this compare to the density of air? Well, that depends on the weather and also on how high up the tower you measure it. Here are a few representative values from this air-density calculator:

Density of air at 25% relative humidity, in kg/m³
Temperature...	−10°C (14°F)	0°C (32°F)	10°C (50°F)	20°C (68°F)	30°C (86°F)
Base of tower	1.331	1.282	1.236	1.193	1.151
300 m above	1.285	1.237	1.193	1.151	1.111

Conclusion: the claim based on a circumscribed cylinder is correct in any likely weather if you only consider the structural weight of the tower. If you go by the overall weight, even for the cylinder it would only be true in cold weather so extreme that I suspect it has never been experienced in Paris. A similar claim based on a circumscribed box fails, and if you use the actual volume of the tower... sorry, Steve, much as I love the tower myself, I have to say that it's nowhere near true.

Cheers, --70.49.171.136 (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good way to get the smell out of a microwave oven?

What is a good way to get the smell out of a microwave oven? I cleaned the oven, using vinegar. Now, I want to get rid of the vinegar smell. I kept the door open for a while, but that is not the best solution. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "taint free" kitchen cleaner spray should do the trick. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baking soda should do it but just using the oven will quickly drive the vinegar smell off. Even a crème brûlée won't get tainted. There is not enough acetic acid left as ovens have a ventilation fan. P.S. Hope you used distilled not fish & chip shop vinegar and not Balsamic.--Aspro (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Options simplified?

Can someone explain calls and puts to me? I need to know it for a class and nothing I look up is clicking. 2001:5B0:2966:81B8:C32:D0A7:2574:1298 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in the very first paragraph of this article: Option (finance). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is further explained in more detail in these two articles: call option and put option. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]