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.

April 1

Do New York Times columnists hangout together or even work in the same building on a few days per month?

Do Maureen Dowd, Nicholas Kristof, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Joe Nocera, Charles Blow, Ross Douthat, Gail Collins, Frank Bruni, Thomas Friedman, etc, know each other? With present technology, the opinion columnists at the new york times could iin theory all work at home, email their work in and never meet each other or other reporters. Is that the case, or are some of them friends, bitter enemies, or respected opponents, or cafeteria companions, or do they ever meet in their offices to discuss current affairs, etc? Thanks.155.97.8.213 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page describes what political columnists do on a day-to-day basis, if that helps fuel your imagination for their working conditions. --Jayron 32 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer for all of them, but I can answer for a few:

Gail Collins famously has great friendships with establishment-conservatives with the last name Brooks, and the Times likes to stage their chats into official publications. Here's her 2016 series with Arthur Brooks, and here's some of her older stuff with David Brooks. If you dig around the site, there's way more where that came from, enough to show that they're really enjoying themselves.
On Paul Krugman's page, we have a great quote from Dr. Krugman himself, admitting that he's a loner.
With Joe Nocera, I'm having trouble finding a cite for this, but he thinks of himself more as a roving journalist than as a writer.
Here's everything you ever wanted to know about Maureen Dowd's life, including that she dated NYT columnist John Tierney *before* the NYT gave them adjoining offices. The short version is that Dowd may be crazy, but she's earned it.
Ross Douthat was living in DC when the Times hired him, and he never moved.

--M @r ē ino 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

Privatisation of public services

Why is it that governments of developed countries are increasingly privatising public services such as utilities, healthcare, transport etc? Is this basically to cut government debts and move risk to the private sector, even if at the expense of public safety? 82.132.218.40 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pros:

1) Private industry tends to be more efficient, because they need to be to survive, while government does not, at least not to the same extent. If another company can get the job done at half the price yours can, then you won't be in business for long. But if another government can get the job done at half the price, that doesn't necessarily mean your government will collapse. However, the fear of losing their jobs due to privatization may be enough to increase the competitiveness of government agencies.

Cons:

A) Private companies ultimately don't have the public interest in mind. That is, if they can increase profits by doing something counter to the public interest, then they will do so. This can also happen in government agencies, though, in the case of regulatory capture, for instance. This is caused by government employees who came from the industry they are supposed to regulate, and plan to return to that industry after they leave, and get lucrative job offers for them and family members in return for doing as they are told, combined with oversight by a legislature which takes millions in campaign contributions from those same industry lobbyists (at least in the US).

B) Giving private companies a profit motive then causes them to lobby government to increase their profits. For example, privately-owned prisons now have an incentive to increase the number of prisoners, by getting tougher sentences passed by the legislature, eliminating appeals, denying the accused representation by competent lawyers, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The experience has generally been that privatisation makes everything worse for the great majority, rarely with any gain in efficiency, especially when accounted for carefully. The cons almost always grossly outweigh the pros. As Joseph Stiglitz says, it is better called "Briberization". So why do it? Government enterprises are big. So there is a lot of money to be made by privatizing them, usually at fire sale prices to connected insiders, who then usually jack up prices and cut services. No other reason.John Z (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be argued that even nationalised organisations are increasingly becoming commercialised, and are thinking about ways to cut costs, recover costs at the expense of service quality? 2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:69B3:64F1:11C:17ED (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask that same question a few months back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to cut costs without reducing service quality, but that's only possible to a certain extent, beyond which, cutting costs further does reduce service quality. Reducing the hours a government agency is open to serve the public is one obvious way in which the service quality is reduced. Increased wait time is another. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One surprising way that government services can be improved, in some cases, is through bribery. For example, say you needed to get a copy of your birth certificate. The typical government agency wouldn't care how long it takes to get it to you, but, if the person responsible for getting it to you will only get his bribe once it's delivered, he might be amazingly fast at doing his job. In a way, it's pay for performance. Of course, you don't want every government worker to be open to bribes, or they might look the other way on safety violations, such as giving out occupancy permits like free candy. StuRat (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A certain amount of money is needed to run any operation, yes, but money alone is no guarantee that it will be run efficiently. Government workers frequently have no incentive to be efficient, if they know they will be paid the same either way. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Projects in large organisations

Is it common to all large organisations that employees, including project managers hired to manage long term/strategic projects, often get distracted by short term or day to day work and are able to spend less time on long term strategic projects?2A02:C7D:B907:6D00:7821:541A:8F17:77E9 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't see why that would be unique to large orgs. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In large orgs, you could have a people who are solely responsible for long-term goals, something not as likely in smaller orgs. NASA might be a good example. Different people are planning missions to Mars decades ahead than are tracking missions currently in space. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money tied up in housing (UK, US, etc.)

I take as my starting point that the UK housing market is in a mess. Certain factors are shared with other countries, but some seem to be UK-specific. It is my impression that an unusually high proportion of the national wealth is tied up in what is colloquially known as bricks and mortar. (I'm thinking specifically of housing of whatever sort, rather than offices, factories, shops, and other buildings.) Presumably, if these funds weren't locked in people's houses, they could be used to invest in businesses, or for other productive uses. So: 1) How much is the British housing stock worth? What proportion of the national wealth does this represent? 2) How does this compare to other countries? 3) What do other countries do with their "extra money"? E.g. maybe they have a higher rate of new business openings. Or more personal savings, and lower rates of endebtedness. I've kept this deliberately open, to see what articles and resources the RefDesk hivemind can come up with, to help me (and others) understand this phenomenon. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 25 million houses in the UK, and the average house price is now just over £200,000 - which gives a total value of about £5,000,000,000,000 = five trillion pounds if I have counted the zeros correctly. Finding data for other countries seems quite difficult - the lists all seem to give costs in relation to earnings, to make the comparisons more relevant, so the actual prices are not obvious. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in a free market, people spend money how they choose...subsidies can cause more money going into housing than otherwise would, however (like tax subsidies in the USA, for example)....but there's no "extra money"...people spend the money on housing instead of whatever else because they want to...if something else comes along that's more attractive to spend money on than housing then people will spend it there...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that people need houses to live in, the overall value of housing is going to be much the same whether it is owned by the occupiers, by commercial landlords, or by the state as social housing. If no-one bought a house for themselves, everyone would have to rent - and in the long run the cost of renting over a lifetime is usually higher than the cost of buying a house. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - if the OP's concern is that the country as a whole has too much invested in housing, then what are the alternatives? Caves? Tents? What's really being said is that individuals have too much tied up in houses - but in truth, most of them are paying mortgages - so the money is borrowed. It doesn't much matter to the economy whether individuals borrow the money and slowly repay it - or landlords borrow the money and repay it from rent income. The end result is rather similar. The cost of construction is lent by the banks, the money is repaid from the earnings of individuals. Whether the houses are rented or mortgaged doesn't really matter until the loan is paid off. At that point, the owner (be it landlord or individual house owner) now takes a large profit from either the rental income or "free" housing. The difference is large for individuals who choose to buy rather than renting - but for the economy as a whole, I don't see why it matters. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In developed economies, housing is frequently the largest lifetime investment a person/family makes. It is also generally considered to be a good store of wealth (“safe as houses”), although that view might be challenged in the last several years. If one does not purchase housing, and instead saves that same amount (plus any other, such as pensions) for retirement, rent will need to be paid. In addition, some governments offer incentives to invest in housing by way of interest rate payments being deductible from taxable income. So, while the price-to-value ratio in the UK may not currently be to your liking, perhaps housing is not such a bad investment.DOR (HK) (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

in 50's America, what could you get in trouble for saying?

apart from Communism/labor activism and homosexuality, I suppose. I've been watching What's My Line and I'm honestly curious about the era.
By trouble I mean being fired from your job or landing on some government list. Asmrulz (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In parts of the nation support for the Theory of Evolution or racial equality might get you in trouble. Support for the legalization of marijuana might, too. StuRat (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong music taste was suspiciously un-american. A letter sent to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover warned that "Presley is a definite danger to the security of the United States. ... [His] actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth." AllBestFaith (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even in 1966 saying something like that the Beatles are more popular than Jesus resulted in reactions like these. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "pregnant" or claiming to be "bigger than Jesus" or any sort of perceived blasphemy.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

@WilliamThweatt: Why do people (partially) re-post the stuff I write, and add their comment above mine? This happened a couple of times now, I'll try to remember the most recent one. I do not get it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: It's called an edit conflict--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: Six minutes later? No, edit conflicts happen when people edit the same page at the same time. And that doesn't explain why the information I post gets repeated, and it doesn't explain the incorrect order of the posts. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: Wow. It's quite a simple concept. Obviously I clicked "edit" before you but it took me longer to compose my reply (copy/paste my links, show preview, reword my reply, correct misspelled some words, show preview again and then click "Save Page"). Only upon saving was I able to see that you had posted something similar while I was in the editing screen. Because I clicked "edit" first, my post was automatically placed above yours. Because you clicked "Save Page" first, you have an earlier time stamp. As for the information being "repeated", literally millions of people are aware of that incident with John Lennon (I mean, WP even has an article about it), not really anything original.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: It is more complicated than you seem to realize. You wrote: "Because I clicked 'edit' first, my post was automatically placed above yours". That does not happen on my computer. When I get the edit conflict screen I have to go back, copy my text, reload the page and insert it in the correct spot, both in Chrome and in Firefox. Am I doing it wrong? I found another example and in that case the comment was written hours after I wrote mine, so it seems unlikely that that was an edit conflict. To be clear, I am not claiming that this was information from a divine source only I have access to, and I know other people can use Google too, it is just weird to see someone else post pretty much the same info above my comment, and I noticed that a couple of times in a relatively short time period. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: as somebody who edits WP as a diversion while focusing on actual important work in other open windows/tabs, I quite often click "Save Page" loooong after (sometimes >an hour) clicking "edit" and I've seen this exact situation happen on talk pages very often in those cases. When it does, I never see edit conflict screen; my posts just get placed wherever the software puts them. I only see the edit conflict screen when the section has been substantially changed in the intervening period, or (apparently) when I click "save page" very close to the same time as another editor (the software can't save two versions at the same time, hence the edit conflict screen, but it does fit in posts where it "thinks" they should go). For example, right now, in another tab, I have the article Surin Province open in an editing window which I opened yesterday morning and have been working on in my down time. Goodness only knows what's going to happen when I finally click "Save Page". As for your other example, I can't speak to that as I had nothing to do with it, nor am I (or you, for that matter) privy to what the other editor involved was doing at that moment.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: Hm, it seems like our browsers handle edit conflicts differently. Out of curiosity (yes, I am a nerd), which operating system and web browser are you using? We should probably use the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to not derail the thread too much. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Naziism wasn't well thought of in the '50s either, though supporting fascists such as Franco wasn't as risky. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone able to call bullshit on this article?

So a guy supposedly has eaten baked beans all life. I call bull on this. Anyone agree?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3089167/Could-survive-just-beans-toast-Man-25-eats-student-staple-meal-doctors-say-perfectly-healthy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎86.34.223.57 (talk • contribs)

Our reliable sources noticeboard has previously concluded that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on its own, and many times there was almost a consensus to completely forbid citing them. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only source for this claim is he himself. See Hitchens's razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". This is probably an advertisement for a producer of low quality food. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable for what the person says he eats. Note the article also includes caveats from nutritionists as well, and is reliable for what the nutritionists state as their opinion of such a diet. Is the article of substantial importance? Likely not. Collect (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be a little careful about what he actually eats - it's not just beans. Beans plus toast - sure. But he says that he drinks milk, and that can make a huge difference. He also mentions that he sometimes eats chips (ie French Fries) - but he's not really telling us how much. Also, note that these are British-style baked beans which have a richer, sweeter tomato sauce than the US varieties.

The linked article said that nutritionalists had said that the beans: "...also contain enough fat to provide him with energy, although his levels are likely to be low. However, they warned his immune system is likely to be low as he never eats antioxidant-containing fruit and vegetables, so fighting off diseases, colds and flu may become a problem, As he ages and requires more calories, he may become frail and his bones may become brittle, they added." - but if he's adding full-fat milk, then he's getting all the fat and calcium he needs, so we must assume that the nutritionalists were not told about his milk intake. The bread surely contains plenty of calories too. So we're left with low "antioxidant" levels - which presumably means vitamins A, C and E. Milk is giving him the A in good quantities, and there is some C and E present in all three foods...but not in huge quantities.

I think it's plausible that he could survive OK on those things. The article also talks about a girl who died eating "a similar diet" - but perhaps she wasn't drinking milk with it. The devil is in the details and "similar" may be quite a bit different than "identical". SteveBaker (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it wasn't stated what sort of milk he drinks. I'm not convinced he'll be getting enough fat even if he drinks 1L a day of skimmed milk (as it's called in the UK [1] [2]) as he'll only be getting an average of 3.1g of fat from the milk. In fact, depending on how often he "travels" he may very well get more fat from the chips. It's also unlikely he'll be getting vitamin A in good quantities from the milk if it';s skimmed. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamins also come in pill form, which is very useful for those who are scared of fruit. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fructophobes? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Political position of professions

Are doctors generally quite left wing as a profession? Especially compared to other professions. 82.132.238.119 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect so. A couple reasons:

1) Being wealthier than most, they benefit more from conservative governments, which reduce taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor.

2) (Mainly an issue in the US.) Being doctors, they would not benefit from socialized medicine, where price controls would be put in place to limit their salaries and keep medical prices down. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing radio called the current system "socialized medicine" with extreme scorn, lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a Conservative government is labelling NHS doctors as being extreme left-wingers should tell you just how far to the right Britain has lurched. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The doctors in which country? Worldwide? Compared to who? All humans on the planet? The citizens of the country they live in? And what do you mean by "left wing"? If you live in the USA then the words "left wing" have a completely different meaning than for example in Europe. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, QP. This is question is what we in Rusnak call polno hovno. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: How would you translate that into English? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full of shit, I'd say. Russian is polno govno. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what nation you're from, so like any good American, I'm going to pretend you're from the USA. :) According to the Kaiser polls, the profession is pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. According to this JAMA research, though, the profession is shifting from slightly conservative to slightly liberal, mainly because the gender gap is disappearing (older doctors in the USA tend to be men; not so with younger doctors). --M @r ē ino 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the scrap and parts value of a house?

If you sold everything in a house for reuse (i.e. sink) or raw materials (melted down/crushed and added to concrete/as firewood/to some guy who'll remove the rotten dark shell of the wood and build with what remains), whichever way is worth most. Not including land value. I wonder why people don't do this to the $1,000 or free houses in Detroit. Maybe you'd make sub-day laborer $/hr even if you did all work yourself? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on the contents of the house. I assume houses sold for prices like that contain very little of value. In general, if something is profitable and realistic there is probably someone somewhere doing it (for example, stealing copper). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, this is Detroit so the copper and easier to remove things like bathroom fixtures have already been stolen.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try it... but remember to read the small print first that says you not only have to bring it up to standard (i.e. livable) but have to live in it too. If you demolish such a building, how can you live in it? It would amount to breach of contract. Mind you... at the same time, that breach may open up an opportunity to reside in a nice warm comfortable cell with three meals daily - all provided for free.--Aspro (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure no one will likely complain if you remove smaller things from one of the essentially free abandoned houses in an abandoned neighborhood. But that would be highly unethical and burglary.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you demolish the building you'll still own the land, on which you have to pay property tax. No one wants to buy the land, which is why we're talking about this in the first place, so you'll be stuck with it. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what's any percent of land that no one wants to buy? But I'm sure they'll figure out a way to not charge you zero anyway.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Winning bidders won’t just hand over a check and walk away; the city requires new owners to sign contracts agreeing to bring properties up to code and occupy them within six months of purchase or risk forfeiting the property.” Re: Detroit Is Auctioning Off Incredible Old Homes For $1,000, and Google is your Friend--Aspro (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If only all those City Management Group, Inc listings are the city auctions then this (for example) seems like a bona fide $1,000 do what you want with it. If the property tax would be anything much (US governments can have some really "creative" ideas of how much your real estate is worth as you likely know) then I can see why people don't do this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next to nothing if (1) it has asbestos or (2) had a meth lab in it. But found one source on wholesale cost of building a house:

Summary: How much does it cost to build a house? Professional builders know the current cost to build a new home is $81 to $143 per sq ft, or more, depending on the home’s size, design, quality, and location. These costs per square foot do not include the cost of land, financing costs, builder's overhead and general expenses, marketing costs, sales commission, or profit. The cost of land or building site varies tremendously depending mainly on location. source

Those numbers are about 1/2 materials and 1/2 labor. So $40.50 to $71.50 in materials. Scrapping would get you maybe 1/10 of that? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases you get nothing for scrapping. That is, the small price you get for the scraps is less than the cost of removing and transporting it. And the cost of demolishing the home is likely to be far more than the $1000. Remember, it's not just knocking the house down, but you still need to haul all the scraps you can't sell away, pay for their disposal, fill in the hole, and push some dirt over. This all requires heavy equipment rental and workmen. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I forgot about gasoline costs (to transport the tons of wood). So maybe there is no price at which this starts happening, no matter how low. Interesting. Will they really enforce if you leave the hole? They can't afford 911 and streetlights for crissakes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in Michigan what happens is the costs of a proper cleanup are added to your property tax, and if you don't pay that I believe it goes to your state income tax, and if you don't pay that they would put a lien against your assets. If you live outside Michigan, then you might get away with it, not sure what the enforcement mechanism is there. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above linked article says

Building Detroit is restricted to Michigan residents, companies and organizations who have not already lost a property due to back taxes in Wayne County in the last three years. These requirements seem aimed at eliminating out-of-state speculators who scoop up houses and then don’t take care of them, a problem that sometimes occurs with properties in the county’s annual tax auction. It also might dissuade less serious buyers — some have purchased homes in the tax auction, only to abandon them once they see the high costs for renovation or steep property tax bills.
“We are not looking for speculators,” Detroit Land Bank Chair Erica Ward Gerson said in a statement. “If you’re not going to act diligently to fix up the house, you’ll lose the house and your money.”
Realty listing site Zillow shows most homes for sale in East English Village have prices ranging from $15,000 to over $100,000.
Winning bidders won’t just hand over a check and walk away; the city requires new owners to sign contracts agreeing to bring properties up to code and occupy them within six months of purchase or risk forfeiting the property. The Land Bank may extend the six-month deadline on a case-by-case basis for owners who have made significant progress on renovations.

So you can't not live in Detroit at least when making the purchase. If you leave later, they can probably pursue you for costs particularly since you signed a contract, and don't be surprised if they somehow find a way to pursue you despite their financial problems when they expect to make more money from you then will cost to pursue you. More to the point, I wouldn't be surprised if even with the mess you left, you've actually still saved them costs by doing part of the demolition work. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you have stripped the house you aren't finished. Remember that finding a buyer for what is essentially trash can be very difficult and time consuming. Time is money. Most landfills contain free construction materials, a friend of mine built a tiny house for a couple hundred dollar, mostly from wood he took from a local garbage dump. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cut that sucker into firewood with a chainsaw! Work from top to bottom and center to edge to avoid it collapsing on you! Who needs a buyer? Learn where all the hidden metal might be (nail etc.) so the chain doesn't break and cut you! No, I am not really going to do that, I was mostly wondering why Detroit still has abandoned houses and also wondering what the price would've had to have been for the free market to solve the housing glut problem by the nuclear option (gasp – fewer houses!). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His local landfill has an almost infinite supply of (fire)wood and other burnable items. Demolishing houses is quite expensive (compared to a 1000 dollar house). If you google "cost of demolishing a house" or "cost of demolishing a building" you'll find loads of info.

The average cost of demolition, including asbestos abatement, for 6,152 Detroit houses torn down under Hardest Hit funding between March 18, 2014 and Oct. 5, 2015 was $13,870, according to a list of contracts provided by the Detroit Land Bank.

The average was lower in the first phase of funding, in which the $50 million was spent from March 2014 to January 2015. It was $12,670. The costs have grown in the second phase, averaging $15,915 in another $36 million of spending. Those numbers go up when factoring in additional costs like soil testing, property surveying, asbestos assessments, utility disconnections, administration and five years of lot maintenance. The land bank provided those extra numbers, although the total is expected to grow. Including those extra figures, the overall average was $15,977 -- $14,827 in the first phase and $17,936 in the second.

The city has primarily cited higher asbestos abatement and soil trucking costs for the rise in spending. In the past, the city relied on tearing down houses under emergency demolition status, which allows for bypassing certain abatement standards.

But the state has tightened restrictions on what constitutes an emergency demolition. And with the city demolishing in large numbers with the federal funding, the cost of finding and trucking clean fill-dirt into the city has risen, land bank officials said. Some homes have cost more than $21,000 to demolish. Others have been torn down for less than $7,500. Fahle said the range is attributable to different circumstances at each home, particularly varying levels of asbestos risk. Detroit last month was approved for another $21 million in Hardest Hit funds for demolition. source. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, such a large fraction of the cost to build it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People don't do this because they know these homes are now worthless – not an asset but liability, all due to Government’s blind faith that Detroit made the best'ed automobiles in the whole wide world and those johnny-come-lately's from Japan and Europe didn’t stand a chance. After all, Detroit's automobile's CEO's knew that that they where producing the cars that all US citizens in their right minds would want – but when the people voted with their feet, the Big Three CEOs Flew Private Jets to Plead for Public Funds. Privatize the profits – but socialize the losses (i.e., make YOU - the tax payer pay). Hypocrisy! The only good thing about living in Detroit it is very close to Canada. Just pop across the river for cheaper pharmaceuticals and so on. --Aspro (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that $1000 is just the opening bid, I'd expect the price to go higher, unless the house is a mess. Also, another gotcha is that you will then have to pay Detroit income tax, while you live there. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

these homes are priced at worthless because they are worthless....you couldn't pay people to take on unlivable homes in dangerous neighborhoods and have to pay RIDICULOUSLY HIGH PROPERTY TAXES TO BOOT!!!!68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Property tax rates may be high, but actual property tax amounts are low, since assessed values are so low. StuRat (talk)

property taxes on a house you buy for 500 bucks in Detroit are going to be at least a couple thousand dollars a year (probably more), I assure you....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

non-opposed directional dichotomy

Silly and frivolous:

The surviving Germanic languages comprise North Germanic and West Germanic. What other entities are divided into North and West, or West and South, or South and East, or East and North, without either an opposite or a middle? —Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're looking for but Northwest Airlines. Southwest Airlines. No Northeast Airlines or Southeast Airlines. Northern Territory, South Australia, Western Australia. No state or territory named East(ern). Midwest US, No Mideast US. Middle Eastern countries. No Middle Western Countries. Far East but no Far West. Near East but no Near West. Northwest Territories, Canada but Northeast is called Nunavut. Upper East Side and Upper West Side and Lower East Side but no Lower West Side (people try to market their apartments as Lower West Side and say it's a microscopic neighborhood that's as lower western as you can get but that's just ridiculous, there is a big river where the Lower West Side would be) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not a divided entity, but the Great North Road and the Great West Road come immediately to mind - the UK has never had a "Great East Road" or "Great South Road", only the Dover Road and Portsmouth Road. Tevildo (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo gets the prize as first to comply with the conditions of the question. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London has South Hampstead and West Hampstead, but no East Hampstead or North Hampstead (although depending how you measure, there is also a "village" of Hampstead in the middle). Also, Yorkshire has undergone a lot of restructurings. Traditionally, it was divided into North, East and West Ridings; with the change in population during the 20th century, it became more useful to divide it into North, South and West Yorkshire, with the East Riding becoming part of the ill-fated Humberside. This means that only North and West Yorkshire have had a continued existence (nowadays, all four Yorkshires exist, but only East Riding is still called a riding). Another British county example is Essex (East Saxons) and Sussex (South Saxons). Wessex and Middlesex disappeared long ago (despite the efforts of the modern day Wessex Regionalist Party) and there was never a Norsex. (Also, while not exactly what you're looking for, there are the US states of West Virginia and Virginia (whose westernmost tip is further west than any point in West Virginia) – Virginia didn't change its name when West Virginia seceded, but "South Virginia" would probably be the most accurate name for it.) Smurrayinchester 10:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More boringly, quite a few British parliamentary constituencies are named like this (such as Wirral West and Wirral South). Still, Durham is pretty funny, because it's represented by North Durham and North West Durham but no other compass direction (although there is a City of Durham too). Smurrayinchester 14:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northborough, Massachusetts, Southborough, Massachusetts, Middleborough, Massachusetts, Westborough, Massachusetts, but no Eastborough, Massachusetts. Also, Essex County, Massachusetts and Middlesex County, Massachusetts, but no Wessex. Also, while not strictly meeting the requirements, Suffolk County, Massachusetts is NORTH of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, which is a bit off. --Jayron 32 13:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An observation on Wessex (by one who lives in it). While of course the Heptarchy is long past (unless it's revived as the basis for English regional governments, as I advocate), the entity of Wessex is still very much alive in terms of numerous Quangos and commercial company names, as a web search on it will reveal, and I'm confident that many people would readily answer "Yes" if asked whether they live in it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mentioning the Heptarchy has reminded me of a good one: the Brythonic lands (Cornwall and Wales) were at the time of the Heptarchy called West Wales and North Wales respectively. See this map for an example. Smurrayinchester 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US place names are of course often derived from the British originals, rather then their geographical locations, as the originals were. I'm unsure how relevant they are to the OP. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do get pairs of villages which fit that pattern. Near here (Norfolk, England) there are North Tuddenham and East Tuddenham. I doubt that is the only such example - but don't have time to go through the gazetteer. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I'd also accept East Bogborough and Nether Bogborough, if there's no West Bogborough, Upper Bogborough or unadorned Bogborough. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit has no south side [3], despite the lyrics to Don't stop believing. It does seem to have an east and west side, as well as a north end, so it might not fit your criteria. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were really from Windsor, Ontario, which I'm pretty sure might qualify as South Detroit... --Jayron 32 15:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC) ^{[citation needed]}[reply]

No, people in Windsor wouldn't consider it South Detroit, any more than people in northern New Jersey consider themselves to be in South New York City.

While not called "South Detroit", the Downriver area is south of Detroit. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I live Detroit metro area...there are three terms used for Detroit..."the eastside" "the westside" and "southwest Detroit"...the last one is where Mexicantown is....the term "south Detroit" is literally never used and doesn't exist but for that song...the band has stated that they just made it up because it sounded good to them...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there's no "north end" either and that term is not in circulation..just looked at the "neighborhoods in Detroit" article...shows a "north end" I've never heard this term used...it's part of an area that hipsters have been moving to over the past ten years or so...perhaps they've started calling it this amongst themselves idk....68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I only put in the mention to north end because I saw our article North_End,_Detroit, which has a few references for use of that terminology. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no Eastside of Chicago which is similar to where South Detroit would be if it existed... In a lake. Chicago does have a North, South, and West side though. There is also a Northeast Kingdom in Vermont but there are no other directional kingdoms. Dismas|^(talk) 15:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Side, Chicago does exist. It's a microscopic zone that's neither big nor east enough to be a side. Which is why its as obscure as the Lower West Side of Manhattan so you don't think the East Side exists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Okay, yes. There is one small community. And this might be a semantic argument but the South Side, North Side, and West Side comprise many such communities. They are larger areas and not little more than a neighborhood. Dismas|^(talk) 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I consider it a BS side too. Kind of like Northwest Cleveland (I made that one up). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also East Chicago, Indiana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Philadelphia, South Philadelphia, West Philadelphia, but no East Philadelphia (which redirects to Northeast Philadelphia). Also Northeast Philadelphia, Northwest Philadelphia, Southwest Philadelphia, but no Southeast Philadelphia (which redirects to South Philadelphia). Loraof (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Philadelphia is Camden. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs of Vancouver include North Vancouver and West Vancouver; there is no East Vancouver or South Vancuover, and incidentally, West Vancouver is west or northwest of North Vancouver (depending on which North Vancouver you mean), not west of Vancouver. Federal electoral districts ("ridings") in Toronto include Scarborough North and Scarborough Southwest but no other compass points in relation to Scarborough. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article called East Vancouver, though it's not a common term (vs Eastside or Downtown Eastside). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not far from where I live in Victoria (Australia) is a point on the map called Maffra West Upper, previously known as Upper Maffra West (surely an important and significant name change). There is a Maffra (I'm a proud Maffradite), but no North, South, East, Lower or any other combinations thereof. NSW has a West Wyalong - but west of where, I hear you ask? There is a Wyalong, but it's only a quarter the size of West W. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in California, Covina is smaller than West Covina. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Long Island, there is an East Northport, New York, which is exactly due south of Northport, New York. There are no other <compass>-ports, or -Northports on Long Island. Just Northport and East Northport. The two have a merged school district known as the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District. --Jayron 32 01:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is Orange, New Jersey, which has West, South and East Orange, but no North Orange that I can find. Those towns play into this oldie: What rhymes with orange? East Orange. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "without an opposite" I meant I'm not looking for East, West and South but no North. By "without a middle" I meant I'm not looking for X and North X (or any superset). Not that saying so more explicitly would have stopped anyone. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and commercial interests in North Dakota tried from at least the 1980's until 2001 to get its name changed to just "Dakota" perhaps so it would not sound like a place with cold winters, leaving only South Dakota. Edison (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And when that suggestion would arise, South Dakotans would retort that it should be renamed just plain "North". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamptons -- East Hampton and Southampton, New York. Loraof (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

berni Sanders

Did bernie Sanders win Nevada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:fa01:2900:f81f:5116:4d4f:b5e6 (talk • contribs)

According to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, he did not. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary did: [4]. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Nevada Democratic caucuses, 2016. Like most states, Nevada is not winner-takes-all. The vote split 47%-53% to Hillary, but both walked away with a decent number of delegates (20 to Hillary, 15 to Sanders). Smurrayinchester 08:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but at this point Sanders needs to consistently win far more than half to catch up. So, in that sense it's a loss for Sanders, too. Heck, Sanders could win every primary from here on, and still lose overall, if he doesn't win by wide margins. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Success of trump

Why is Donald Trump so popular among Republican voters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.90.229 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for the Ref Desk, not the Ref Desk itself. I suggest you move this Q to the Misc. Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, to get you started, Trump isn't all that successful among Republican voters. The main advantage he has is that the anti-Trump vote is split among several candidates, so none of them gets more votes than Trump. However, Trump may not get a majority, either, in which case there will be a contested convention, and it's entirely possible that the anti-Trump coalition will align behind one candidate and beat Trump there. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a relatively balanced and well-sourced discussion, see Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, particularly the "Support Base" section. For the anti-Trump Republicans that StuRat mentions, see Stop Trump movement. Smurrayinchester 09:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball buzzer beater: The "zone"

I know of a US high school basketball game in the 1960's when a player attempted a potentially game-winning field goal as the clock expired. He tossed the ball toward the basket before the buzzer sounded, but it was still several feet from the goal when the buzzer sounded.It went in. The officials ruled, and the losing coach agreed, that the shot failed to score because it had to be "in the zone," meaning in an imaginary cylinder extending upward from the rim, when the buzzer sounded. The 2016 NCAA championship game was won by a shot made by Villanova with about 0.7 seconds on the clock, and the time expired when the ball was several feet from the basket. It still scored and won the game. In the Buzzer beater article and the article about basketball rules, I see no reference to there being a different rule for high school ball, or ever having been any rule other than that a scoring goal had to leave the shooter's hands before the buzzer sounds. Was there ever a buzzer beater rule which called for the ball to be above the basket when time expired? If so, when did it change? Edison (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the official rules, what you're calling "the zone" is usually called "the cylinder", meaning the imaginary cylinder extended from the outer edge of the rim up an indeterminate distance. The only rules I know of where the cylinder come into play are goaltending and basket interference. Otherwise, I am unaware of last-second shot rules where it currently comes into play. All rules state only that the ball needs to have left the shooter's hand before the clock expires. It may have changed in the past, but perusing several sites which list important rules changes: [5], [6], [7] I can find no examples of the rule ever having been as you state. Now, even knowing that, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and the rule may have existed on the HS level in the 1960s. AFAIK, there was not even necessarily homogenization among state HS basketball rules back then; the National Federation of State High School Associations has existed since the 1920s, but I don't know what level of coordination existed in the 1960s, or if state associations all even used the same rule book back then. --Jayron 32 16:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't. Only 8 states require shot clocks according to shot clock (Maryland only requires it for girls). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

How do I personalize my signature with colors, different fonts, and such? I have tried to create my signature and then copy/paste it, but it always changes back to the same font and black color. 16:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Elsa Enchanted (talk)

See Wikipedia:Signatures. It's all there in gory detail. Have fun! --Jayron 32 18:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Nazi plunder

Toward the end of the war, where did the Nazis stash their stolen works of art other than at the "big three" storage facilities at Siegen, Merkers and Altaussee? In particular, did they have any stashes anywhere near Prum, Bitburg or Trier -- or did they decide these places were too close to the front line for safety? 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian railways route distances

I am working on an environmental impact statement for an organization in Ukraine. I need to report their train travel passenger-miles for known routes (given origin and destination cities) in 2015. Can anybody find a table of individual route distances? I can't. (If it only lists individual segments instead of all long routes, that's fine.)Hayttom (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an app for that, but you'll have to enter each route individually. (Hint: After entering the origin and destination and getting the distance, look to the right of the distance and make sure to change the travel option to "Train" -- the default is "Driving".) 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]