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.

June 7

"Do not duplicate" on keys

Many organisations stamp "Do not duplicate" on keys that are given out to patrons, such as college dorms that give keys to the students that live there. What do these organisations do if they need to have a new key made, such as if a dorm resident can prove that a key was flushed down the toilet? Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR warning. If the organization is large enough, like a large university, I would think that their facilities/buildings and grounds/maintenance staff would have a bunch of key blanks and a key grinding machine. Otherwise, they likely have a contract of sorts with a local hardware store or locksmith. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google search on the phrase "keys marked do not duplicate", you will see a number of web sites discussing this. Several of them only talk about what the specific company whose web site it is will do, and they say that they will duplicate such a key if a suitable letter of authorization is provided. At least one web site acknowledges that not everyone would respect the "do not duplicate" in any case; apparently it's not enforceable by law, although in some places it might be. --Anonymous, 03:22 UTC, June 7, 2010.

A further point: many of the keyway profiles for such keys are licensed by the manufacturers, who won't provide blanks to anyone not a licensee. In other words, Home Depot or Ace Hardware won't have the correct blanks. Acroterion _(talk) 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few links in support of Acroterion alexandralocksmiths and integrity --220.101 (talk) ^Contribs 05:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flush a key down the toilet? That's an awesome toilet you have there. And just how would he/she prove it? Seriously though, most key cutters, at least here in the UK, are only interested in making a sale and would ignore anything like that. And they can get blanks for any key, if not from the original manufacturer, then from someone else. Practically any physical key can be copied, which is why all big organizations are changing over to electronic keys and RFID tags.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. In the UK, getting a 'Do not duplicate' key cut is pretty easy, and I've been told twice before that there is no law on it - it's just like, "Not for resale" on multipacks of crisps. They don't want it to be resold/duplicated, but the law doesn't protect it. To answer your question - companies like Universities will have access to companies who can cut the keys professionally, probably the people they buy the keys from in the first place. There's a place in Liverpool which, unofficially, claims to be able to cut ANY key. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the companies selling "multipacks of crisps" really care if the individual packages are resold; it's your government that cares, as the individual packages don't have things like ingredient lists and nutritional information required by labeling laws. I could be wrong, though; I have no reference to cite. --Anon, 02:55 UTC, June 8, 2010.

While this source [1] makes the same claim and there are some examples where it's part of the reason, e.g. [2], I'm unconvinced this is the sole reason at least here in NZ. Some products with not for individual sale do have the required ingredient lists and nutritional info, AFAIK all the info required by law [3]. E.g. cans of softdrinks [4]. I have a can of coke marked not for individual sale right now and it seems to have all the important info including an expiry date. Comparing a can of Mountain Dew and the Coca-cola can I can't see anything in particular that it's missing other then the EAN-13 bar code and if I were to get a can suitable for individual sale it wouldn't surprise me if it's more or less the same plus the bar code. As I mentioned it does lack a EAN-13 bar code, but I don't believe there's any legal requirement for that in NZ (many large retails stores may of course require it). Definitely given that it contains the expiry date and is precisely the same size, I can't see any reason why it would be cheaper to produce this 'not for individual sale' variant unless there is some compliance cost I'm not aware of. I don't think having the barcode raises costs does it (well there's probably a small cost to secure a barcode in the first place but for Coca-cola this cost would likely be irrelevant I would think and back to my earlier point they could just use the individual sale cans)? Edit: In fact further proving my point, I've taken a look at the box and the info seems the same as what's on the can except for adjustments like 24 servings per package and other then irrelevant stuff like how to open the box and of course the bar code. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little more information at Key blank. I've googled around. Basically, the way 'Do not duplicate works,' is this: Different companies make different keys. Some companies make the 'blanks' fully available, others seriously restrict them. If a company wants their keys to be impossible to duplicate, they will release no blanks and make copies themselves. These keys are more expensive. Note that third party manufacturers have been known to reproduce these. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be simple to put a little paint over the "Do not dupe" stamping, get a duplicate from the hardware store (if they have the blank), then dunk the original in paint remover to restore it to original condition? Edison (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but clearly the security gained from writing it on the key is meant to be quite slight. It's basically just an advertised honor system. If the institution needs real security, presumably they will use more complicated measures. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the OP's original question, the answer is likely that the organization holds on to an original in a secure place that doesn't have the "Do Not Duplicate" stamp on it. If a dorm resident loses his key, he just needs to let the organization know he needs a replacement and they can make one from the unstamped original. This allows them to have some idea about how many keys have been handed out.

Another possibility is that the organization makes a fixed number of "Do Not Duplicate" keys and that when they run low on their supply, they change the lock rather than make copies under the assumption that too many keys are out there for the lock to be secure anymore. —D. Monack ^talk 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the USA, many locksmiths will not copy a key with a "Do not duplicate" notice on it. The reason being is that many mailbox keys also say the same thing, and making a copy of a key that might be for a mailbox could have bad repercussions. If someone uses this copied key to steal mail, which is a federal offense, then the locksmith may be held as an accomplice to a federal crime. Note: This is only the excuse I have been given by different locksmiths when I tried to get one of my own keys copied with this warning on it. Just my 2¢. ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:42, 28 Sivan 5770 / 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What other buildings keep/kept their height a secret?

As many people know, the Burj Khalifa kept its height a secret until opening day where its height was revealed to be 828 meters. I was wondering if any other building keeps/kept their height a secret. Apparently Burj Khalifa may have been the first but I am not sure... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Burj Khalifa was the first, though I don't have a source for that. It wasn't exactly a secret - they weren't sure! They'd never built a building nearly as tall as this, they didn't know how certain forces and environmental factors would affect it. The architecture regularly revised the upper components during building. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 09:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, but my question is if there were any other buildings before or after that kept its exact height a secret (at least until opening day). After a search ""exact height is a secret" -dubai -burj -khalifa" I could only find at least one other building (in Saudi Arabia), but that was the only one I found. I wonder if there were any others. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famously, the Chrysler Building's final height was kept a secret until the spire was erected. Warofdreams talk 10:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they pulled the same trick at the Empire State Building. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Capella Tower was "officially" built one foot shorter than the IDS Center, out of respect for the older, more well known building. However, during construction it was discovered that they needed another 14 inches or so for some ventilation ducts, so the architect tacked on another two feet, extra height that was largely ignored in the official literature. (The IDS still holds the "tallest building in Minnesota" record due to a window washing shed later being built on the roof). Buddy431 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed buildings have suggested their final height might be kept secret or have frequently changed their proposed height. See Nakheel Tower#Height for an example of this kind of strategy. Astronaut (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf War

Was the gulf war started for resources ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllica4 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was about resources. See Invasion of Kuwait. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a shortage of Titleists in Iraq, and Kuwait had plenty, so Saddam went after them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the real issue was resources, but the stated reasons (on both sides) had nothing to do with resources. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was rightfully an Iraqi possession based on how boundaries were drawn within the Ottoman Empire. The United States and its allies countered that Iraq did not have a valid claim to Kuwait and that Kuwait's sovereignty had to be defended. So, according to the public statements of combatants, the war was about sovereignty and territorial disputes. (Of course, a critical observer could argue that Iraq would not have made the claim or attempted to enforce it were it not for those resources. A critical observer might also argue that the United States might not have intervened were it not for those resources, just as, for example, the United States did not intervene when Morocco occupied Western Sahara or when Israel occupied the West Bank and other territories.) Marco polo (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, I don't want this to flare into a political debate, but my own sense is that the gulf war was initially a political reaction to 9/11. The fear, anger, and insult caused by the world trade bombing called for some sort of political response, and the Bush administration (which was a bit hawkish to begin with) thought a war would be the best thing for recovering national pride and reassuring the populace. Afghanistan and Iraq were mostly targets-of-convenience - not really intended to resolve any particular problem, but easily warped (rhetorically) into a position of responsibility for the WTC, easy to punish without too much risk. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about these conflicts myself, but the Gulf War article states it started in 1990, some 11 years before the 2001 attacks. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "(Persian) Gulf War" without any modifiers, at least in the United States today, usually refers to 1990 conflict. Occasionally, it may mean the Iran-Iraq War (especially in publications before the 1990 war), or else the ongoing Iraq War (sometimes called the "Second Gulf War", or even the "Third Gulf War" in reference to both the Iran-Iraq war and the 1990 Gulf War). Buddy431 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, that was the first gulf war. I thought you were referring to the second. Again, though, this was largely (IMO) a political move. With the collapse of the Soviet Union some 9 months before, The US was left in the position of having an absolutely huge economic commitment to the military without any opponent even remotely close in power. That placed the Bush I administration in a precarious position: scaling back the military would have a profound economic impact on many regions of the nation that rely on tax revenue from military contractors or from income from local bases, as well as undermining the 'strong nation' ideology that was a Republican trademark even back then. But leaving the military commitment as it was with no real justification for a military was (eventually) going to look very bad. It was just a matter of time before people started asking why we were spending billions/trillions on weapons systems for use in 'machete' wars in central America. Iraq became the poster child of the new American Military - America as a kind of unilateral global peacekeeping force. Ultimately that was what hamstrung the B1 administration, though: B1 (unlike his son) was unwilling to go the extra mile needed to depose Hussain (it was one thing to act as a peacekeeper and drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, but another thing entirely to act as an invading force and depose a foreign ruler). That ultimately cost him the next election: he lost votes from people who hated the war to begin with, and from people who hated the fact that he didn't finish it. --Ludwigs2 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC) ^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]}[reply]

I'm going to have to stick a ^{[citation needed]} on that last comment. The idea that anyone would start a war to avoid shrinking the military is a pretty outragous assertion. Where are your sources? If you don't have any - then this is Original Research which we frown upon here. So either produce your sources or delete your comment please. SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a second one on that last ridiculous comment, because Ludwigs2 has forgotten all about how G.H.W. Bush actually had a giant boost in the polls after the end of Gulf War I, and Clinton won because of "It's the economy, stupid". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought G Bush Sr lost because of Read my lips, no new taxes. Googlemeister (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 1992 reminds us that there were a hundred factors, probably; but the point I was trying to make is that Gulf War I was a positive for GHW Bush in the subsequent election, not a negative as Ludwigs2 claimed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what Ludwigs2 would post to turn this question into a flaring political debate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Steve: start with military-industrial complex - that article is a bit thin but outlines the problem, which is a well-established debate in the political science literature. Google it if you want more information. In brief, the issue is conflict of interest. ideally, the purpose of the military is to defend the interests of the nation (and by extension of the world at large) against dangerous foreign powers, and should be applied by political leaders for that specific purpose. Pragmatically, however, the military also has a number of other faces: The military can be a significant source of political pride or embarrassment (the military is always politically charged, and extremely sensitive to questions of legitimacy), and military bases and military contractors constitute a significant source of revenue for specific congressional districts and states. There is nothing inherently wrong with congress-people trying to secure revenue for their districts, or with political leaders trying to improve patriotism and national pride through judicious use or improvement of the military. However, it does create an unpleasantly symbiotic relationship between foreign policy and domestic politics/economics. The theory that the Gulf War was related to a shift in US military policy after the fall of the SU was also established in academia (though it was drowned out in the media by the left-win 'No Blood For Oil' stuff and right wing jingoistic stuff). Bush himself mentioned the end of the cold war in his speech announcing [the war] "We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order -- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations." (interestingly, he talks about UN peacekeeping as the ultimate goal, though the UN had almost no participation in the invasion itself). And Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" campaign worked mostly because Bush had been busy prosecuting the war without enough concern for the domestic situation.

Plus, this is the reference desk, not the encyclopedia. I assume that anyone reading this will be doing their own research on the matter, and that responses here are designed to give them insights in to places to begin looking. Your citation concerns are noted, but do not worry me excessively. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cuddlyable3: you have no idea - lol. would you like me to post something politically pointed, just for some festive flaming fun-ness? --Ludwigs2 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So - military-industrial complex doesn't say - or even hint that what you said before is true. Your quote from Bush also doesn't say or even hint that it's true either. Nothing else you just said supplies any actual evidence beyond your own thoughts on the subject. So basically, you're making this stuff up as you go along - and you should have the honesty to admit that and retract your previous unsourced (and unsourceable) comments. SteveBaker (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we should take this to the discussion page, since we seem to have a disagreement about the nature of the reference desk. --Ludwigs2 04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a UK perspective, I believe there was a concensus (though many were opposed) that we were going to war because we had promised to help Kuwait if they were attacked. The UK entered WWI and WWII on the same context - neither Belgium nor Poland supplied us with anything useful; we were simply standing by our commitments whatever the cost. The sight of 5 year-old British hostage Stuart Lockwood[5] standing up to Saddam put the bulk of public opinion firmly behind military action. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the level of protest at the time, I think the exact opposite was true - the British public were firmly against UK involvment in another war at the behest of the USA. Only Tony Blair and some other dimwits were convinced by Tony's sexed-up dossier. Astronaut (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong war. See Gulf War. John Major was Prime Minister in 1990. Alansplodge (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

barbers

Do barbers have to dispose of waste in a special way? Or do they just put bags of human hair out in the trash like normal waste? Question Factory (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would almost certainly depend on the local rules of the country. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably if there was a special collection service for bags of human hair,it would be done the day before and marked with special signage..'Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow.' cue applause.I thank you Lemon martini (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a voluntary program, not an official waste management policy, but you may be interested to read about the activities of Matter of Trust, an enterprise that uses human hair clippings donated by barbers to make products that are used to fight oil spills, such as the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico [6]. Ka renjc 16:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall

I have been given an assignment to get a couple of names from the wall. I have researched the sites that pretain to the wall and cant find the specifics I need. When you visit the wall, the very first name that you see when you enter the site with the wall to your left is what? Likewise, when exiting with the wall to your left, what is the last name on the wall? Please help me with this.

<email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.160.178 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the email address. All replies to this question will be posted here. Please do not provide your email address to avoid becoming a target for spam. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.viewthewall.com, the first name on the west end of the wall is John H. Anderson Jr., and the last name on the east end is Jessie C. Alba. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can view all the names, panel by panel, at The Virtual Wall. Although this wasn't the OP's question, I wanted to point out, as does the Vietnam Veterans Memorial article, that names on the Memorial begin and end at the apex: the first name (Dale R. Buis, died July 8, 1959) is at the top of panel 01E (first panel east of the apex), and the last name (Richard Vandegeer, died May 15, 1975) is on panel 01W (first panel west). --- OtherDave (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Britons also say "Queen of England"?

Most non-Britons rest assure that Elizabeth II is the Queen of England and refer to her like that. But do Britons also use the term "Queen of England" when referring to Elizabeth II?--Quest09 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just say "The Queen". And "Queen of England" is wrong, of course. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and if we needed to be more precise we would use her name, rather than any country. Saying what Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of is very complicated, so it is best not to try! --Tango (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last Queen of England was Anne, who was the monarch at the time of the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Any Brits hearing the term "Queen of England" would generally assume that the speaker was American. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily American, but perhaps some other non-British nationality as well. It's not only Americans who have trouble distinguishing between the concepts of England and the United Kingdom, there might well be people all over the world who do that. I figure Europeans tend to have a better grasp at the distinction than non-Europeans, but that doesn't mean even they can never mistake the two concepts. JIP | Talk 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise for past monarchs; even when a monarch is only the king of England, you'll mostly just say "William the Second" rather than William II of England. The only time you'd commonly hear the kingdom specified is where there's an relevant ambiguity, such as differentiating between James II of England and James II of Scotland. Monarchs before the Norman Conquest start to fall into very ambiguous territory, and so often get called after their nickname - so Æthelred the Unready, to differentiate him from the many Æthelreds. Note also that ER2 is queen of lots of places, so she's the Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, and was even Queen of Pakistan for several years - so a sentence like "The Queen of England opened a new hospital in Vancouver" is doubly wronger. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, of course, I believe that the upper echelons of society consider it unseemly for any of her subjects to refer to as "The Queen" - her official designation is "Her Majesty The Queen", or HM for short. She has various other nicknames among the common plebs, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, she is either "the queen" (ie. she's the person currently fitting that description) or "HM The Queen" (her official short style). "The Queen" is wrong - by capitalising "Queen" you are using it as a title rather than a description, so you should use the correct style, which includes HM. Of course, that's a very pedantic "should", and is really only followed in formal circumstances. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears not to be the case when used in the Loyal toast; it's hideous complexities like this that still sell royal etiquette books, long after you could realistically get your head cut off for getting it wrong. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, in fact, the official website that I linked to seems to be quite content to refer to her as "The Queen". Not "Betty Windsor" though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She can be, however, accurately called the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Australia. I guess it's just not a complete title... TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen of Canada" isn't really a title, it's an office she holds. Her style is "HM The Queen" or, in full in Canada, "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". --Tango (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be a comma after "God" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a subject of the Queen in Canada, I know that I and most of the people I know refer to her as "the Queen". Or, at least those who know how the constitutional monarchy we employ works. She is, after all, our Queen as much as she is the Queen of England, so to speak. Aaronite (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've never heard her called the Queen of Canada in common conversation except in a quiz game of some sort when I was a kid where it was expected to trip you up. It went something like, who is the Monarch in Canada?, "The Queen", The Queen of where? "The British Queen", No, the Queen of Canada!

It was a simpler time. TastyCakes (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-She's also the Duke of Lancaster. That's not a mistake. If she was a Duchess it would be because she's married to the Duke. She is married to a Duke, but he's not the Duke of Lancaster. Confused yet? --Dweller (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this would be any different than "the President" to Americans. There are plenty of countries with a President but Americans don't go around referring to Obama as "the President of America". We simply say "the President". Or is there some subtle distinction that the OP was getting at that I'm not picking up on? Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some American situations he's given his full title. Such as, when he enters the Congress to make the State of the Union address, he's introduced grandly to the members and senators as "The President of the United States of America" (as if some of them were expecting the President of Kazakhstan, perhaps?). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the president of BP Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's in specific ceremonial times. I got a more relaxed "every day" use context from the OP's question. Dismas|^(talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction though - Obama could accurately be called "The President of the USA" because he's not also the president of anything else. Calling the Queen "The Queen of England" is about as meaningful as calling her "The Queen of the wardobe in the back bedroom of Apt.11b, 112 Evergreen Terrace, Worthing, Sussex"...which, I suppose she also is. SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't insist on Calling Obama, President of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona... Wisconsin and Wyoming, so Queen of the United Kingdom sounds accurate. Googlemeister (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wha??? Obama is not the President of any state; nor is he the President of all the states. (Nor is he, for that matter, the President of Congress; nor of the courts; nor the Commander in Chief of anything but the federal armed forces; and so on.) He is the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, a position titled "President." The Federal Government is "The United States of America," but it is not any state nor all the states. 63.17.62.133 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I think the point was he is president in the country were Alabama etc. are located. So he is their president even if he is not president "of" them. You see? The Great Cucumber (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common ignorance around the world about the difference between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, all of which are rather different. This is exemplified by the surprise people exhibit when they see this flag being waved by England fans during the World Cup, rather than this one. --Dweller (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it, I had a friend of mine try and convince me that GB was the one that included NI, and the UK was a sole island. When shown he was wrong, he insisted they are actually interchangeable. It bugs me that people are happy to live in the UK all their life but not learn basic facts about it, and that it doesn't bug them. But I'm fighting a futile battle on both fronts I suspect. Prokhorovka (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to remember that 83% of the population of the UK live in England, and in total 97% live on the island of Great Britain. So, it is relatively understandable (though I'm not defending it) that the terms UK / (Great) Britain / England are confused even by some people living here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's without getting into 'Britain' and 'British' without the 'great' being generic terms referring to the whole UK, not just the island of Great Britain. I've lost count of the Americans who have told me I am 'wrong' about this, even when I give them links to various UK government websites doing just that. Of course, the same people tend to tell me The Troubles are simple, so I don't know why I try to reason with them. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually attributed to Ed Murrow talking about Vietnam, but I've also heard it attributed to "a Belfast housewife in the height of The Troubles" - "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation". DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to why Americans 'say it wrong' a partial answer is that "Queen of The United Kingdom" doesn't really roll off the tongue and "The Queen" also feels wrong because it feels like it's implying either "the queen who has jurisdiction over us" or "the one, single, universal queen", both of which are wrong.

I feel secure that if I say "Queen of England" people will understand that I mean the current queen of the United Kingdom, and not some historical queen with jurisdiction specifically over the nation of England. APL (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nablus and Hebron

Which city is the largest city in the West Bank? Both are described as such by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieb2 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this [7] says Hebron, and this [8] says Nablus, and neither is desperately authoritative. So to summarise, the first page of Google on 'Largest City in the West Bank' isn't that helpful. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, which I have found to be quite reliable, the answer is that neither of these two is the largest city in the West Bank, based on the internationally accepted definition of the region. The internationally accepted definition of the West Bank (according to, among others, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478) is the area formerly held by Jordan and occupied by Israel in 1967. The largest city in that area as of 2007 would be East Jerusalem (Al-Quds), with 225,416 inhabitants, not including Israeli settlers. If you accept the Israeli definition of the region, which excludes East Jerusalem on account of Israel's annexation of that area, the West Bank's largest city is Hebron (Al-Khalīl), with 163,146 people. Nablus (Nābulus) has only 126,132 people. My source cites the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That UNSC resolution doesn't define what the West Bank is. It does affirm that Israel occupies those territories but does not say that they are one entity (it infers they are not), does not use any term for the eastern territories apart from the coastal ones or even use the term "West Bank" at all. Instead it uses the cumbersome phrase "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem" which presumably includes all occupied areas, including Gaza and Jaffa. They are vague perhaps because of the legal existence of the Jerusalem corpus separatum, which the European Union, among others, recognizes, as that article notes. As the Positions on Jerusalem article says, the UN also seems to agree that the Jerusalem corpus separatum is still the legal entity, though it is obviously pursuing the division of the territory between Israel and Palestine. Although I think the West Bank would include Jerusalem in the everyday speech of most people that I know but presumably not the OP. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nablus is c. twice as populous as Hebron, according to our articles. But perhaps the problem is the word "largest" - does that mean in area or in population? Ambiguous terms will give ambiguous answers. --Dweller (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article on the West Bank defines East Jerusalem (i.e., the part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in violation of UNSCR 478) as part of the West Bank. I think that most observers outside of Israel see East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Certainly the Palestinian people of the West Bank consider East Jerusalem part of the West Bank. As for the population statistics, as of now, our article on Nablus gives the population of the governorate centered in Nablus, whereas our article on Hebron gives the population of that locality, according to the statistical agency of the Palestinian Authority. The population of the locality of Nablus is in fact lower than that of Hebron, as I have stated above. Our article on Nablus, at the moment, is wrong to cite the population of the Nablus Governorate, since that administrative division includes many other towns and rural areas that are not part of the locality or urban area of Nablus itself. Therefore, I will correct the population cited in Nablus and qualify the statement in Hebron about being the largest settlement in the West Bank. Marco polo (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made these corrections. Marco polo (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

incentive recovery by a indian company from a emplyoee

I was given incentive by a indian company during my work and after leaving the job and after 3 years the company has send me a letter of final settlement showing recovery of incentive paid to me as a foreign trip on acheiving the said targets, Why I should pay it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.242.248 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a request for legal advice perhaps? Googlemeister (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it. You should consult a legal professional, not a bunch of random internet users. Legal advice can have serious consequences if it's incorrect and someone acts on it. That is why Wikipedia does not permit us to offer it. Good luck. Ka renjc 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This is not legal advice, just a question ...) Does it say in your contract that incentive payments can be recovered, or was there a document sent with the payment that set out the circumstances under which you were entitled to keep the payment? (You will need to take any such documents to your legal adviser.) Dbfirs 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trademarks

Are name of films or video games trademark,or registered trademark,or not?Thanks:)Ladsgroup^بحث 19:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, usually. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:)Ladsgroup^بحث 21:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can look up United States trademarks by going here and clicking "Search Marks", and then selecting "New User Form Search (Basic)". For example, typing in "How to Train Your Dragon" into the database brings up two live trademarks and one dead. One of the live ones, registered to DreamWorks Animation, covers "COMPUTER GAME CARTRIDGES; COMPUTER GAME CASSETTES, AND COMPUTER GAME TAPES; VIDEO GAME CARTRIDGES, VIDEO GAME CASSETTES; PRERECORDED AUDIO CASSETTES FEATURING MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACKS; PRERECORDED VIDEO CASSETTES FEATURING ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; PRERECORDED AUDIO TAPES FEATURING MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACKS; PRERECORDED VIDEO TAPES FEATURING ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; PRERECORDED DVDS FEATURING ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; PRERECORDED CDS FEATURING MUSIC AND MOTION PICTURE SOUND TRACKS; MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE RECORDED ON CD ROM FEATURING MUSIC, MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACKS AND ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; AND PRERECORDED DVDS FEATURING MUSIC AND MOTION PICTURE SOUND TRACKS; PRERECORDED COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS RECORDED ON CD ROM FEATURING MUSIC AND MOTION PICTURE SOUND TRACKS; INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE PROGRAMS RECORDED ON CD ROM CONTAINING MOTION PICTURES FOR ENTERTAINMENT; INTERACTIVE MULTI-MEDIA SOFTWARE RECORDED ON CD ROM FOR PLAYING GAMES; MAGNETS AND SUNGLASSES", among other things! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There can be state registered marks too though, so the US Trademark site is not comprehensive. Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, though for films and video games, the odds are they will be in the main USPTO site, as they are generally intended for at least interstate trade, if not international. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook question

Facebook has recently started suggesting people that I share no mutual friends whatsoever with as potential friends. I make it a rule never to request Facebook friendship with people I don't even know. Now my question is, why is Facebook doing this? I see three possible reasons:

Facebook is broken.
I do have mutual friends with the person but because of some bizarre privacy settings, I don't know I have.
Facebook is doing this on purpose to try to entice me to request Facebook friendship with the entire world.

Does anyone have any idea which of these, if any, is correct? JIP | Talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it's done that with me for months... ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With me, too, and at least one of those persons was a somewhat well known musician, so I have been assuming it's a paid advertisement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you share a group membership (or several) with them? Or went to the same school/university? --Tango (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did this with me, and since I've used Facebook less than a dozen times in total, it was easy to trace the source; the person it was suggesting shared a name with another friend who I'd found by using the search - presumably, it memorised my search results (I may even have clicked on this profile to check to see if it was the person I was looking for). So, it could be because of a previous search, or simply because you've looked at a profile. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it make suggestions for me with people who live in completely different parts of the state, but have similar interests. I found it a little disturbing that Facebook would do that. Falconus^{p t c} 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see they're members of the same groups as I am, or I've liked the page for that musician in the past and they have their own page - that sort of thing. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's true, then it's a bloody stupid idea. I'm not going to request Facebook friendship with someone I have never met and don't even know just because we both like the same band, film, or other such thing. It's just like expecting me to feel a personal, intimate connection with everyone who likes to eat food. JIP | Talk 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worrying fact is that lots of people are not as careful as you are, and they do request and accept Facebook friendship with total strangers. This is especially worrying in the case of children or other vulnerable people. Dbfirs 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOX 404 Requirements - USA

I am looking for guidance with regard to acquisitions and divestitures with regard to having to include them in the annual assessment.

I'm particularly interested in knowing about a material divestiture occuring in the 3rd quarter. Am I required to perfom ICFR procedures on the divestiture up to the time it is sold? Meaning, do I have to do anything with regard to testing controls specifically related to the unit to be sold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montreal2010gainy (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say right away that you need to speak to your SOX expert, whether it's an accountant or lawyer, and that you shouldn't be following advice from random people on the Internet about matters that, if we're wrong, will screw you up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that there are very few if any RD regulars who would even take on such a question, be they right or wrong. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking to be pointed to the guidance - can't find the regulations - nothing further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montreal2010gainy (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a site [9]that gives come information on Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance. And here is (OMG) "SOX for Dummies" [10]. Ooh, look, here's one specifically for 404, it's a huge pdf [11]. There now that should be a start. I'm not a random person giving advice, I'm a random person pointing to where you might find some advice. I mean this whole question is a bit like a brain surgeon coming along and saying "I've got this little dangly bit at the bottom, do I tuck it in or cut it off." It worries me that you are having to do this stuff and come asking how! Richard Avery (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The operative rule is Rule 13a-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It won't tell you much. The SEC has provided interpretive guidance, and the PCAOB has issued Auditing Standard No. 5. But, essentially, you need the services of an experienced U.S. accountant. John M Baker (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 9

Speed of light gibberish at the end of advertisements

It all started with a legal requirement in various jurisdictions that political advertising include an indication of who was paying for the ad and some other details. On TV and radio, this information was squeezed into a sliver of time at the end, the audio equivalent of fine print at the end of a print ad. That sliver has been getting thinner and thinner, and the information has to be spoken faster and faster, so fast that the information is now next to unintelligible for many people, and thus defeats its own purpose.

This also sometimes happens where viewers are advised to be aware that the price quoted in BIG print is subject to the various qualifications in small print. At least, that's the gist of what I think they're saying. That would be in line with requirements for ads not be misleading, and I can understand and support that, as long as the information is actually comprehensible enough for consumers to be able to make use of it in their decision-making moments.

But what's happening more and more is that this is being used as a "technique" in ads for things that have nothing to do with politics and it's nothing, as far as I can tell, about the price. Ads for things like hair products, baked beans, you name it, are routinely finishing with garbled gibberish spoken at a speed faster than many human ears can comprehend. What they actually say in these extremely brief moments of fame is beyond me, so it's all a complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned. They might be speaking the fine print words that sometimes appear at the bottom of the ad, but those words usually stay on screen for only a second anyway, which makes them unreadable and a waste of space - so I wouldn't know.

What can explain this gimmick, if that's what it is? I can't deny it gets people's attention, but if the attention is gained only at the very end of the ad, what happens to the rest of the information?

But why do it at all? Why make an ad for chocolate icecream sound like an ad for the Progressive Democratic Reactionary Party? They won't sell any more icecream that way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how things are in Oz, but in the U.S. such things are usually included to satisfy legal disclosure requirements, and it doesn't matter whether they're intelligible (or legible, if they're presented in "small print") as long as they're there. The ones that always get me are those of the "This product may cause dizziness, projectile vomiting, incurable eczema, Tourette's syndrome, and sudden death" sort. I'm not taking any of any of that stuff no matter what my problem is. Deor (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Virginia Legislative Information System: Regulated Advertising Practices. "In radio ads, where terms, conditions or disclaimers are used, they shall be clearly announced during the ad. They must be explained clearly and at an understandable speed and volume level." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see different ads, but we have much the same thing in the States. For organizations like banks and auto companies, there's a lot of disclaimer verbiage, some of which has entered common speech ("your mileage may vary"). Some of that is a legal requirement; some is just the legal department weighing in. For other advertisers, my guess is that the motormouth endings are either ironic humor or mindless imitation. This was done differently (not as an ending) some years ago by the actor John Moschitta in a number of ads for the company now known as FedEx. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During radio ads for the station's contests, they'll often say "For full rules and conditions, see our web site at..." This is in Vermont, US. Dismas|^(talk) 01:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an answer to your question, but in the UK political broadcasts will have before it the TV channel's announcer saying something like "Now follows a General Election broadcast for the X Party" and at the end something like "That was a General Election boardcast by the X Party". Since these are said by someone from the TV channel, rather than someone from the political party, they are said at a completely normal speed. It seems to work well. For regular ads, disclaimers are usually done using small text (often too small to read and displayed for less time than it takes to read), spoken disclaimers are rare. --Tango (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimers explained. hydnjo (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well shouldn't it be legally required for those very disclaimers to also be legible/audible? If people can't see it or hear it, then what's the point? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The end credits on The Simpsons and some other programs are flashed up for such microscopically short moments that any notion of creative people actually being acknowledged for their contributions goes straight out the window. The clear message is "We have to mention them, but there's no law that says how long we have to mention them, so we'll just get away with as short a mention as possible". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the truth is, I don't think most of the audience really cares about all of the credits. I find it so wonderfully pleasant when old movies told you the main actors, the director and producer, and left it pretty much at that. Nowadays (thanks to various union contracts) the guy who brings sandwiches and coffee gets creative credit for the final movie. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it has gone to absurd lengths, I agree. But 24.189's point remains: If you're going to mention someone in the credits at all, for whatever contribution, there's no point doing that unless the potential readers of the credits are actually given a reasonable opportunity of actually reading the credit. Same with end disclaimers: If they're spoken so fast as to make the message incomprehensible to the general listener, then communication does not occur, and listeners are not adequately warned or advised about whatever it is they're supposed to be warned or advised about. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what it's called (other than a dislaimer), but it has been used to humorous effect in some (cartoon) shows. One I recall (perhas in Family Guy) had a TV advert where the main line was something about a guaranteed cure for some ailment, while the rapidly mumbled disclaimer listed a number of undesirable side effects and ended with "...this is not a guarantee". Astronaut (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly things like gambling and financial services are regulated over here. Bank ads always end with "Standard Bank is a licensed financial services provider and a registered credit provider". Gambling ones are even stricter: "GrandWest Casino is a licensed casino. Gambling only for over-18's. Gamble with your head, not your heart. Winners know when to stop. Toll-free gambling counseling line 0800 xxx xxx". Don't know about hair products and baked beans (exactly how much were you exaggerating?), but there could be rules related to medicines/cosmetics and food safety. Check with your local Advertising Standards Authority? Zunaid 19:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fully fledged Ref Desk Respondent, so it ought to be extremely obvious that I never exaggerate. :) Maybe I pulled some examples out of the air, but I really have seen/heard some ads where this mumbled gibberish at the end appears to be there for theatrical effect only, but as I say, the effect, whatever its noble aims may be, is totally lost on me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television producer Chuck Lorre uses this technique at the end of his various shows, often flashing a very lengthy message in very tiny print on the screen along with his copyright information. See the section in his article titled "Vanity Cards". — Michael J 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean football team in World Cup

I hate "crystal ball" type questions on these desks, and yet here I am asking one; sue me. I find it very interesting that the Korea DPR national football team has qualified for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, for the first time since 1966. What is the likelihood of one or more of the squad joining the ranks of North Korean defectors? It seems to me a golden opportunity for someone to get away from one of the world's most repressive regimes. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RefDesk is not here to supply answers to your crystal ball questions. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, which is why I prefaced my question with a humorous disclaimer. Plus, I'm a regular on these desks (answerer more than asker), so I merit a little leeway. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you prefaced it. You can stab someone and plead guilty, it still doesn't mean you get given a small present... ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be notable speculation on this topic (personally, I wasn't able to find anything really relevant, though I found a couple of bloggish comments and something on a not-so-famous American newspaper's website, but deemed it useless). There are also precedents that may be relevant. Your analogy isn't very helpful. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it interesting that three players of the 23-man squad selected to represent Korea DPR at the World Cup play for non-North Korean clubs. --Магьосник (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [12] from the article on Hong Young Jo is also interesting (bear in min DailyNK is 'run by opponents of the North Korean government' as is obvious from the links in the site). Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a link but I remember some african athletes snuck away from the olympic village during the sydney games and applied for refugee statusJabberwalkee (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own OR speculation would come to the conclusion that athletes who try to claim refugee status will likely have their families suffer out of retribution. Livewireo (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speculating on South Africa but note that North Korea had many away games in the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC). 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - AFC Third Round#Korea Republic v Korea DPR was in South Korea. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could we know what the likelihood is? It's not something quantifiable or even likely knowable. But if we look at the experience of other states that deny people the ability to emigrate, like the USSR, the common way to try and keep a high value sports player or entertainer or scientist is 1. keep their family at home (most people are not interested in permanently abandoning their families, especially if they think that harm might come to them if they did so), 2. keep a close watch on them while they are abroad, 3. create incentives for them to be happier at home (a nice dacha, for example). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find that we don't have any articles on Sports defectors or Cuban sports defectors - a fairly populous group perhaps most similar to North Korean sportsmen. Rmhermen (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Eritrea national football team, as well as Eritrean club teams, have routinely defected during any international competition, and those who run the team have started to force players to put down a surety before leaving. Eritrea is the only country that comes close to being as bad to live in as North Korea, and it's actually ranked worse than North Korea by Reporters Without Borders in terms of freedom of the press. So it can and does happen. As others have said if any planned to defect it would have happened already; defecting now, when everyone is intently staring at South Africa, would probably not be the brightest of moves because of the attention it would draw. A Korean person would look rather out of place in South Africa anyway. Xenon54 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim any expertise in answering this question, but it's worth remembering that the North Korean regime doesn't hesitate to punish people for the "crimes" of their family members. Some people are locked up because their grandfather fought on the wrong side of a war generations ago. So I can certainly imagine a soccer player fearing that his family would be mistreated if he were to defect. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: several Cuban soccer players defected the last time they played a WC qualifier in the USA. Compared to N. Korea, Cuba was always a long shot to make the finals and while their government is repressive, it's not quite as bad as the truly monstrous DPRK regime. Don't count out the possibility that some North Korea players are waiting to defect until after they've played in the World Cup. —D. Monack ^talk 00:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Capitols

Looking at List of state capitols in the United States, I notice that most of the Capitols/State houses are built to a similar plan, two large wings with a domed centre structure (usually with columns on the front, sometimes with a cylinder or tower in place of the dome). Is there a particular reason for this copying of the US Capitol? Alternatively why are Alaska (rectangular office block), Hawaii (low, rectangular office block), New Mexico (round), New York (romanesque), and North Dakota (an anonymous looking office tower) notably different in design? Astronaut (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, you'll see a couple of other state capitols (such as Virginia's) that don't follow this model. However, most do. This kind of structure became popular in the early U.S. states during the early 1800s as an expression of the Federal style of architecture, itself a late version of neoclassical architecture. The popularity of this style had to do with the self-image of the new republic as the heir to the spirit of the ancient Roman Republic and the democracy of Athens. An architectural style hearkening mainly back to ancient Rome was seen as fitting for the republic's public buildings, particularly the buildings where its federal and state legislatures assembled. These buildings feature a dome probably because their architects wanted them to have a strong visual signature against the skyline. At the time, towers and steeples were the main alternative to domes as vertical architectural features, but they would have suggested an unwelcome connection to a feudal, theocratic, or aristocratic past. So, these architects chose what they saw as the Roman republican dome. The United States Capitol in particular became something of a model for state capitols built during and after the mid-19th century. However, there was no requirement to follow this model, and a few state governments clearly chose not to conform to it, in one or two cases choosing architectural styles reflecting local cultural traditions instead. Marco polo (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that many state "Capitol" buildings are no longer the seat of the legislature as they used to be; many have been outgrown and supplanted by more modern structures. For some examples, North Carolina State Legislative Building and the Alabama State House. The state capitol buildings themselves were almost always copies of (or closely inspired by) the United States Capitol. Interestingly, the earlier state capitols resemble the original U.S. Capitol, with its lower dome, and later state capitols mimick the later larger dome. Compare these pics:

Original metal dome on U.S. Capitol, 1823-1855
North Carolina State Capitol, built 1840
Updated U.S. Capitol, new dome constructed 1855-1863
California State Capitol, completed 1870

The U.S. Capitol and, thus all of the multitudinous state capitols, are undoubtedly based on the design of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, and further back, to The Pantheon, the grandfather of ALL domed porticoed buildings. List of state capitols in the United States is an interesting table, and has cool pics. --Jayron32 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neoclassical architecture (through its various stages including federal architecture & Greek revival) became very popular for public and establishment buildings (government buildings, museums, banks, etc), since is evocative of state power, prestige, greatness, through its homage to the (perceived) pure, rational world of the ancient Greeks & Romans (and their successful empires). Thus it is perfect for those states trying to assert their imperial governments/establishments. The USA was not alone in adopting it; others include Nazi Germany, the USSR, and others of the Soviet bloc, and the British Raj eg. New Delhi. Gwinva (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many neoclassical buildings of that time are designed in the styles of either Palladio or Gibbs, because they wrote books on the subject, making it much easier for many other people to imitate their way of designing, and as such many buildings around the world look similar or even identical. 80.47.183.121 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska's capitol building puts me in mind of Systematization (Romania), more brutal than Baroque.→86.152.79.31 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geico Gecko name

Does the Geico gecko have a name? Googlemeister (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --LarryMac | Talk 16:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin? Googlemeister (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - named after the Ad Agency who created him: "The Martin Agency". SteveBaker (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Blood Donation

I'm just going through the process of booking myself in for a blood donation through the National Blood Service website. When doing the "can I give blood" health check, it states that people who have "travelled to Ravenna province in North-east Italy may not be able to give blood". Why's this? Our article on Ravenna doesn't seem to help. matt (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found out why. Apparently there was an outbreak of the Chikungunya virus in 2007 ([13]). Perhaps this can be added to the article. matt (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not directly related to your question but in Ireland, anyone who has spent 1 year or more in total in the UK, including Northern Ireland, in the years 1980 - 1986, cannot donate blood. Stanstaple (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true when donating in the US, 1980-86 being the peak of the BSE epidemic (no matter how vegetarian one was during that time). Conversely one cannot donate in the UK if one has recently visited anywhere where West Nile virus is endemic, which now accounts for much of North America. To my mind we should collect these kind of things in Blood donation#Recipient safety rather than specific blood donation organisations or geographic areas, and link briefly from the diseases to Blood donation#Recipient safety when mentioning their (sometimes alleged) transmissiblity in this fashion. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease#Blood donor restrictions. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InterRail question: I've got the rail pass but no reservations

I bought an InterRail pass from Copenhagen to Kraków, from there to Spittal an der Drau, and from there to Stockholm. This is otherwise all OK, but for some reason, the Finnish railways can't sell reservations to trains travelling in Poland. So I've got two rail trips on my journey, from Lübeck via Szczecin to Kraków, and from Kraków to Vienna, that I have a valid InterRail pass for but no reservations. Can I buy just the reservations from the Polish railways or some other place over the Internet, or do I have to take the chance to try to buy them on the site when I'll get there? JIP | Talk 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the Polrail website, which sells tickets and reservations, but it doesn't seem to be set up to sell just reservations to Interrail holders. You could try buying reservations for the Polish portion of your trip when you get to Copenhagen. Denmark may not have the same restrictions as Finland. Otherwise, your only choice seems to be to wait until you get to Szczecin. According to this site reservations are needed for 2nd-class tickets within Poland only for the faster express trains. You always have the option of taking a slower train without a reservation. Marco polo (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked the trips up at http://www.bahn.de/ (the German railways), which I use as a trusty resource for international connections, because the website of the Finnish railways only gives timetables for trains within Finland, and I don't understand Polish, or any other Slavic language. None of the individual connections travelling within Poland say Reservierungspflicht (mandatory reservation). I noticed that at least one of them says bitte reservieren (please reserve) but I don't think that's an absolute requirement. It might very well mean that without a reservation, I have no hope of getting to sleep in a bed during my overnight trips from Szczecin to Kraków and from Kraków to Vienna, but will have to do with sleeping on a normal train seat. JIP | Talk 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not make a reservation through bahn.de ? Astronaut (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it appears I can't. When viewing the timetables at http://www.bahn.de/, it says Nicht im Internet bestellbar (not available for purchase over the Internet). I've contacted the German railways by e-mail but I don't know when they'll reply. JIP | Talk 05:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to attempt to get last-minute Schlafwagen reservations in Szczecin, don't be afraid to try German if the ticket agent doesn't speak English. I found that lots of Poles, especially in western Poland, speak German. Marco polo (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I sent e-mail to the German railways, trusting my German skills to be good enough, asking about this. They replied the following day, saying that it should be possible to buy reservations online through http://www.bahn.de/. However, I can't find any place on the site to do that. On the contrary, the site keeps telling me that train connection can't be reserved through the Internet. I've sent a reply to the e-mail I got (also in German) about this. I would very much like to have reservations at least for the overnight trains so I could avoid sleeping on a seat. At least if nothing else works, I can try to buy reservations on the site when I reach Copenhagen or Lübeck. JIP | Talk 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German railways replied to me again. From what I could understand, they are aware that they are not available to provide online prices and booking for every single route their timetables can find, but that they are assuring me online booking is still possible. I didn't understand exactly how it's done however. I think I shall have to try to book an earlier train on the same route (which would not actually do, as it would have me wait at a station in the middle of the night) but explain in the comments that not only do I have an InterRail pass and only want a reservation, not a full ticket, but also that what I actually want to book is a later train on the same route. JIP | Talk 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to do this by phone or via a travel agency. They have a policy not to sell Interrail reservation too easily, because people have a tendency to buy reservations and then not use them, but also not cancel them, leaving a 3 euro reservation that they could have sold as a 60 euro ticket. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't modern ships include sails?

Why don't modern ships include sails to supplement their regular propulsion? It must cost a fortune to propel a big container ship or tanker. They could be used when the wind is with the ship, and I bet they would save loads of money. Or would they? (P.S. I'm sure you'll find one or two ships that do use sails, please don't link to those and answer "they do", why don't the vast majority of ships use sails?)--178.167.212.167 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is an idea that is starting to get attention [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. However most of the modern proposals involve kites not sails and the reasons why sails are problematic is somewhat explained in the refs. As to why not before, I would take a guess that the cost (including initial outlay, maintenence, crew etc) didn't seem worth it until recently where probably with the increasing cost of fuel (bear in mind that most of these are from when the price of fuel seem to be increasing without a clear end in sight, before the global economic meltdown and corresponding collapse in the price of fuel, I first read about it in 2005 in the NS article) and the lower cost of materials, automatic systems etc, people started to re-evaluate such possibilities. Note that while I don't know what you mean by 'loads of money' the tests suggest a savings of 10-35% in fuel which is probably a decent amount of money isn't an exceptionally large amount percentage wise. Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That begs the question, if a kite "is more efficient at capturing wind power than standard sails, takes up less shipboard space, and supposedly does not require additional crew", why didn't they use kites instead of sails 3 centuries ago? :-)--178.167.212.167 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to sail upwind with only a kite. Rmhermen (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the weight of a typical steamship is, compared with the weight of a clipper ship, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stad Amsterdam displaces a bit over 1,000 metric tons. A lot of modern cargo ships exceed 20,000 tons, and the really big ones can go over 100,000 tons. Googlemeister (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Container ships and clippers are apples and oranges. Better to compare frigates and trawlers, or Battleships and small freighters/ferries.--178.167.212.167 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are the modern ships the OP was asking about. And I might add that the clippers, designed for speed, are still rather slower then modern cargo vessels. Googlemeister (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of reasons (I'm guessing) why sails were used historically rather than kites.

Sails give better control. for instance, a ship with sails can actually maneuver into the wind (see Tacking (sailing)) which would be impossible with a simple kite.
materials strengths. Kites affix at a single point, concentrating all the strain of force there. sails affix at multiple points, spreading out the force, and usually large ships have multiple masts which distribute the force even more. a kite on a wooden frame ship would probably tear the bow off.

that being said, early ships - roman and greek warships, and egyptian barges, for instance - had simple fixed sails which effectively operated as kites, and usually had to supplement with oarsmen. even later trade ships, such as spanish galleons, had big fixed kite-like square sails for traveling at speed with the wind, and smaller lateen sails for trickier maneuvers.

Note also that both sails and kites have diminishing returns issues. I doubt that a modern freight carrier or oil tanker could be moved entirely by wind power (at least, not at anything resembling a decent speed). The largest spanish galleons displaced something on the order of 2000 tons; modern container ships are bigger - the Emma Mærsk displaces 137,000 tons, or some 65 times the size of such wind-powered vessels.

Traditional sailing ships were very labor-intensive. A few decades ago there was discussion of having masts on container ships to use wind as propulsion, with sails something like venetian blinds, operated by motors rather than by Jack Tars scaling the ratlines to unfurl sails. Wind is energy which could lessen the fossil fuel required. Edison (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wind power could supplement steam power, but it occurs to me that it would take some big honkin' sails to get a huge cargo ship going, so I don't see how sails alone would be practical. And if you run motors to raise and lower the sails, there goes your fuel savings. There's no free lunch. Regardless, you have to have an engine as a backup to the sails (as is done on small sailboats), just in case the wind dies down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on — there's no relationship between the energy used to power the motors to raise and lower the sails, and the energy provided by the sails. They're completely separate issues. I haven't done the math, but I would be shocked if the first were even a noticeable fraction of the second. --Trovatore (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you think the energy required to close a blind is a significant percentage of the energy required to power a supertanker?--178.167.179.162 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are alternative schemes such as rotosails and turbosails. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair to close down routes to Glasgow Prestwick

While reading the article about Glasgow Prestwick Airport I found that the routes to Brussels, Budapest, Gothenburg, London, Milano and Rome will be suspended. Is this really true? Dreamfurniture (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would either look on the official website (there may be a blog of some sort) or look on a news site such as BBC News. Also, if there is a reference for that then try going to that. Chevy monte carlo 04:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be last year's news, according to this article. If the announced cuts actually occurred, Ryanair made a renewed commitment to Prestwick earlier this year according to this article. It reaffirmed that commitment in this recent article, while suggesting that it might move flights from Prestwick to Edinburgh. It's hard to know what to make of that suggestion. It could just be part of a negotiating strategy to get Prestwick to cut the fees it charges the airline. I would think that the airline would be reluctant to yield market share at Prestwick. Marco polo (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Begging license

Oslo has recently seen an increase in the number of beggars, apparently from former East European countries. This is an unwelcome sight in this generally wealthy and tourist-friendly city. Today a politician proposed that the police should impose a license for begging. What experience exists with such licensing and what are arguments for and against it as a solution? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Begging#Restriction_of_beggars has a discussion on some attempts to legally regulate and restrict panhandling. Specifically, that section cites an Orlando, Florida ordinance that required permits for begging. You may want to use that as a launching point, and look in Florida newspapers such as the Orlando Sentinel for some more info and opinion as to how that law went over. --Jayron32 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I am intrigued by the concept of a former East European country, as if some land has been floating across the ocean to another part of the world, leaving behind some refugees in Oslo. In any case Norway extends further east than Istanbul so is arguably the easternmost European country other than Russia. Sussexonian (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until after the fall of communism, "Eastern Europe" was synonymous with the 8 countries of the Warsaw Pact. Former East European country is a political rather than geographical description. Romania is one of those countries and is the source of many beggars on the streets of Oslo. Arguments that I have collected so far are:

For: Gives the police direct means to deny organised begging, to prevent aggressive begging, and to identify criminals and illegal immigrants. Enables tracing of beggars and registering for emergency health care.
Against: Needs a costly beaurocracy and police effort to maintain. Effectively legalizes begging activity but does nothing to solve the problem; in that respect it is comparable to legalizing prostitution. It can make Oslo an even more attractive place for beggars. Personal data protection can be a concern. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What type of banchan is this?

File:Mystery banchan.jpg

Mystery banchan. Close up at bottom.

I'll tell you what type, the most amazing ever, that's what type! Seriously, does anyone know what it is? It was crunchy and somewhat spicy like the kimchee cucumber on the left (along with the kongnamul at far left), but also had a sort of savory flavor too. It tasted amazing and I'd like to know what type of plant it was at least. Though it resembled them, it did not taste like scallion or any kind of bean. Deglr6328 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've said it didn't taste like any bean, but it looks like long beans to me. Chinese long bean As you can see, they're not beans but a sort of vine. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like garlic stem/sprout to me. See [19] and [20]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Media reporting of numbers

I've just read an article in a newspaper where a cash amount has been given as $5 million. Why is this format used, as '$5 million' is the same as '$5 000 000' or '$5,000,000'. Is this done because newspapers think that people can't understand numbers and can't count, or is there some other reason behind it? --russ (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably takes less space to print 'million' than all those zeros. Astronaut (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's faster to read "million" than to glance at 6 zeroes and be certain that you have subitized 6 zeroes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason we give distances in kilometers or millimeters instead always stubbornly using the meter. It's better to use an easily-handled small number than an equivalent large number.

They don't think we couldn't figure it out. Heck we could work it out if they gave us the number in nickles. They do it for the purposes of clarity and easy-reading. APL (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a phrase, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." That sort of thinking or related thinking might be involved here in addition to the other answers given. The longer version involving all numerals might seem to suggest scrutinizing the amount of money too closely. It is a gift, in this instance.

It is also a round number, so I think the other responses apply. Also, I think one form (all digits) conveys a materialistic approach to reporting the event, and another form (digit plus word) is a more "humanistic" approach. [User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a weird implication of precision if you use all those digits. "$5,000,000" tends to imply exactly that much money. Not $5,000,001 not $4,999,999. There's no easy way to write $5,000,000 out while also indicating that some or all of the zeros are not significant figures. Writing it as "$5 Million" or even just "$5M" lets you sidestep that issue and get right to the point of your story which is that a large sum of money was just awarded, spent, wasted, etc. APL (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"$5M" is often used to mean "$5,000" (M for Mille, which means thousand), with "$5MM" for "$5,000,000". However, you are far from alone in thinking M should stand for Million. Therefore, I would advise against using "M" is this context. Either write out "million" in full, or use a lowercase "m". --Tango (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt you, but where is this used? Aaronite (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, not in many places as far as I can tell. The Wikimedia Foundation uses it, though, and they insist it is common. I disagree about its commonality, but I doubt they are completely making it up. --Tango (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"$5M" for "Five Million Dollars" seems pretty common in newspaper headlines. Perhaps in other contexts (Scientific? Historic?) it means thousand, but I think it's safe to say that in a headline it will always mean million. APL (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspapers (etc) I know would use K for 1000. eg. "$5K" Gwinva (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see MM for "million" all the time in business presentations. It's a curiosity at this point because, as Gwinva states, everyone uses "K" for "thousand" and nobody uses "M" for "thousand" — it's just the "mille" oddity that Tango describes above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APL, you talk of a "weird implication of precision if you use all those digits". I'd go further than that. It's not an implication but an outright declarative statement; and it's not weird to ask numbers to do the work they're designed to do. Let me explain: if I enquired about the price of a relatively small aircraft and was told, in writing, "Five million dollars", I would take it that the price was roughly $5,000,000 but not necessarily exactly that amount. Maybe slightly lower or slightly higher. But if I was told "$5,000,000", that would tell me the price is exactly that. I would even quibble if they then charged me $5,000,000.75, because that was not the price they quoted me. I guess my theory is undermined somewhat by the common tendency to be over-specific when detailing monetary amounts. By that, I mean cases like "This machine takes either $1.00 or $2.00 coins". Well, duh. What's the point of specifying zero cents when there's no such thing as a coin that has a face value of $1 or $2 plus some cents! It should say "This machine takes either $1 or $2 coins". So, it's possible that the person telling me the price of the aircraft was also falling into the excess-specificity trap; maybe the real price was $4,998,678 but they just said "five million" for the sake of convenience, but instead of writing "five million dollars", they wrote "$5,000,000". Maybe. But in the absence of other evidence, I'd treat these responses the way I've outlined. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree categorically with the suggestion that "$5,000,000" implies any different precision than "$5 million" or "five million dollars". The choice is purely a matter of which one the writer thinks the reader will find easier to read. Whether a number is read as exact or not is determined by context. Jack gives the example of asking for a price quotation and receiving a written answer; a written price quotation should be taken as exact. But if the same number occurs in the context of something like a lottery payoff (the kind that is calculated rather than a pre-announced round number), common sense requires the assumption that it was rounded or was an estimate in round numbers.

Incidentally, the other day I saw the number "$12G" in a newspaper headline. It meant $12,000 ("12 grand"), but I had trouble keeping myself from reading it as $12 billion (metric prefix giga-). These one-letter abbreviations are indeed tricky. --Anonymous, 16:20 UTC, June 10, 2010.

I agree that written quotes should be exact. "$5,000,000" is exact. "$5,000,000.00" is even more exact. But "Five million dollars" and nothing more is rather more open to interpretation. Often, quoted prices will be in both words and numbers so that there's no possibility of misunderstanding; but just "Five million dollars" with no numbers looks like someone's conveniently rounded the true price to the nearest handy figure. I would certainly be seeking confirmation of the exact cost if that was the quote I was given, and I would expect it to be a little different from exactly $5,000,000.00. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual rule is that, in informal prose, trailing zeros are insignificant. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: We don't want readers to have to count the zeroes to know if it's a million or 10 million or a hundred thousand. And it takes up less space. Newspaper style is all about clarity and space. And this symbol: $ means "US dollar." So "$5 million" is the shortest, easiest-to-read way to print the amount "five million dollars" AND be precise about it. "$5.4 million" is exactly 5,400,000 U.S. dollars, and so on. DavidH (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that "$5x10⁶" isn't likely to catch on anytime soon then?! That's a shame because it's even shorter than "$5 million" - and in the case of $5x10⁹ less likely to be confused than $5 billion - which means different things on either side of the Atlantic. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it happening. But billion is not particularly ambiguous when talking about money (at least in English), not since The Economist signed on to the short scale. The Economist also writes just $5M or $5B as a matter of course (that's actually how I got used to that notation). --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also confuse everyone who doesn't come from South Asia, and write 50 lakh. But what's confusing to me in English is placing the currency sign before the number because it's not the order in which you read it; just try reading aloud "$5", line break, "million"... — Kpalion^(talk) 08:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is discussed at Talk:Currency sign#Position of currency sign. Essentially, it seems to be a fraud prevention practice of sorts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONSERVATIVE FUNDS

CAN A CONSERVATIVE CLUB INVEST SOME OF THE CLUB FUNDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.16.196 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Firstly, please don't type in all capitals - on the Internet it's considered the equivalent of shouting. It would also be nice if you followed the instructions at the top of the page and typed four tildes after the post so we know where the post came from and when. Secondly, I presume you are referring to a club affiliated to the Conservative Party in the UK? The following answer is UK specific. Basically, a lot depends on what is in the constitution, or rules, of the club itself. If the constitution specifically mentions that the commmittee has powers to invest the monies of the club on behalf of the club's members, then yes it does. These are known as explicit powers. There are things called "implicit powers", and it may be argued in a court of law that the committee has the duty of care towards its members to ensure the best possible use of its funds for its members, which may well include investing some of its funds in property, bonds, shares etc. It would, however, be unwise for the committee to rely on these implicit powers. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find some information on this page of the Association of Conservative Clubs website. Unfortunately I can't be certain or any more specific than this due to blocks on my internet connection. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Phone Radios

Why are the radio sets built into mobile phones and iPods incapable of receiving Medium Wave frequencies? --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may need to look up medium wave (as I did), it's the frequency band used for AM radio, as contrasted with the FM radio receivers in many mobile phones. Anyway, the question is answered by the distinction laid out above. Phones, etc, if equipped with radio receivers, are equipped with FM receivers, which are not cross-compatible with AM receivers. So adding the capability to receive AM signals would require an additional component at some additional cost. So there's first the tradeoff of "does another receiver fit?", then "do we want to lose profits or raise prices to account for it?" Throw in that AM is generally the second-tier (at best) radio system these days, and that radio isn't the primary (or even secondary or tertiary) function of these devices, I don't find it surprising that most manufacturers don't bother. But fundamentally, the answer to "why?" is "because" -- and barring detailed conversations with who knows how many people involved in the process, repeated across who knows how many companies, we can't say for sure. — Lomn 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything definitive through Google and I've forgotten all the 3rd and 4th year telecomms I learnt, but I suspect the other reason (beside the rubbish quality of AM radio in urban areas) is that the size of the antenna (it needs to be approx. 1/4 wavelength to be at resonant frequency) could be too long for the typical earphone cord length? (Actually compared to a car aerial it seems about the same length and car radios pick up AM just fine. Now I'm starting to doubt myself.) Lomn's reasoning is probably spot on. Zunaid 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was because Medium Wave was an older frequency...never mind. Chevy monte carlo 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Because" is not an appropriate answer. An AM antenna does not need to be some absurd 1/4 wavelength physically, unless you want to transmit on AM at MW frequencies. They have used little ferrite loopsticks for many decades. Earphones or telescoping metallic antennas are for FM. A loopstick antenna or even a little could be easily built in to a cell phone if any demand existed. Edison (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My cheap little transistor radio picks up both AM and FM just fine. Presumably it's simply a lack-of-demand issue where iPhones and such are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the problem with summarizing as "because" given the multiplicity of ways that "why" can spread out. Because AM and FM radios use different receivers? Because they use different antenna types? Because the manufacturer didn't want to pay for an extra receiver? Because they didn't want to pay for an extra antenna? Because they couldn't physically fit one or the other? Because they didn't want to budget the power? Because they didn't want to budget the user interface complexity? Because the design team never considered it? Because there's not enough demand? Because marketing says it makes the product look outdated? Because an autocratic executive vetoed it? Because the manufacturer would rather partner with a for-pay radiolike service than provide free over-the-air content? Because there's collusion with the Illuminati to get people to only listen to mind-control FM radio? Because there's collusion against the Illuminati to protect people from mind-control AM radio? After getting past the discussion of AM and FM as separate technologies, and that reception of one doesn't guarantee reception of the other, we can't possibly answer for any product, let alone all of them. — Lomn 13:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FM radio is just a tiny chip (actually portion of a chip also doing other things) and a few tiny surface mount passive components. AM receiver takes much more space. Baseball Bug's transistor radio just about certainly has a loopstick antenna inside, using a lot more space than a few tiny SMT parts. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R.M.S. Royal Edward ports of call

I'm doing some geneological research on my family and I'd like to know if the ship Royal Edward included Sault Ste Marie, Canada as a port of call. This would be in the year of 1913. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudakore (talk • contribs) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the HMT Royal Edward which seems to be the same ship. Bear in mind that the St. Lawrence Seaway was only opened in 1959; ocean-going ships could travel no further than Montreal until then. --Xuxl (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more information here[21] and here[22]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was an oceangoing ship, it could not have traveled up the Saint Lawrence River (and through the Great Lakes) to Sault Ste. Marie in 1913. However, there is no reason that a passenger couldn't have disembarked at Halifax, St. John, or Montreal and then continued by rail to Sault Ste. Marie. Marco polo (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women/Feminist News and Media

Looking for alternative/s to mainstream womens magazines and Ms magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in these feminist blog lists: feminist blogs, Take Part. Marco polo (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/People/Women/News_and_Media/. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

How do you report abused dogs in the United States?

I'm aware of a neighbour's dog being chained up outside daily during a heat-wave, with no access to shade, food, or water. I'd like to report it to the relevant authority, but I'm not really sure who that would be. SPCA don't seem to have the authority to either warn the owner, threaten to remove the dog, or to remove it. Animal Control just seems to deal with wildlife (snakes, possums, etc), not pets. So who should I call? 202.10.90.209 (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP traces to New South Wales, which I suppose is not impossible if you're in the US, because you could be logged in remotely to a university account or something, but it does seem a little unusual.

In any case, these things depend on what state and even city you're in, but my offhand thought is that you could try the police; if they don't have jurisdiction they should at least be able to tell you who does. --Trovatore (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, call the police. If they are breaking some animal cruelty law, then it's the police's job to enforce it. If they aren't breaking any laws, then there is nothing you can do (other than advice your neighbour that it's probably not good for the dog to be outside in the sun like that - it is generally good to talk to neighbours before reporting them to the police, since you have to live near these people and it's best not to make enemies of them, which reporting them to the police is very likely to do). --Tango (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., whenever you suspect a crime is in progress, call 911. If you're not sure if it's a crime, call 911 anyway. It's the police's responsibility to determine the correct response. You won't get into trouble for abusing 911 if the situation is a judgment call. (In truth, abusing 911 is almost never prosecuted as a crime even in the most frivolous cases. The police don't want to discourage people from contacting them.) —D. Monack ^talk 07:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

911 is for emergency situations. A non-emergency number is generally available any given police department. --LarryMac | Talk 11:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A crime in progress is an emergency situation. If an animal's life is being endangered, a timely response is necessary. Emergency response operators are trained to assess the situation and determine where resources should be allocated. They will not be shy about telling you that you need to call a different number. —D. Monack ^talk 19:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(... unlike in the UK where 999 is reserved for emergencies, and the RSPCA would be the contact point.) New South Wales has an RSPCA. California & Scotland have SPCAs but perhaps the OP is in Hong Kong or in Malaysia. Certainly the police would advise on the correct authority, but the emergency number might not be appropriate. If the dog is suffering, you could take it some water (with your neighbour's permission). Dbfirs 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the United States, I would first try calling the local police station. I think the expectations for 911 may vary from place to place. (I've moved around a bit and have lived in different states.) When I've had a complaint that is not life-threatening, I've looked up the non-911 phone number of the local police station and called there first. Sometimes they will take the call. Other times they will direct you to phone 911. This way, you don't need to worry about burdening 911 with a call considered inappropriate in your jurisdiction. However, I will caution you that local police departments may not take this kind of animal abuse very seriously, especially if you are in a jurisdiction with a high rate of violent crime. A good next step would be to call the local branch of the ASPCA. Although they do not have any real power, they can advise you on the best strategies for relieving the dog's suffering, including perhaps how to motivate the police to respond. Marco polo (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, the SPCA's in America do have legal authority: examples ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division, Houston Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Rmhermen (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to vary by locale. Check your county or city web site for animal control or contact the local SPCA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call the SPCA. They might not have authority to do anything themselves but they should be able to advise you about what to do next. Don't call 911. If this situation has been happening day after day, a few more minutes of figuring out the right agencies to call won't make it worse. But diverting a 911 operator for those few minutes might slow down the response to a burning building. More sensibly, why say something directly to the dog owner? 75.57.243.88 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question not answered

What do you do when your question was not answered?
I asked questions that get mocked, even though they are scientific, and people find fault with them or
give side track responses, and I would like to know what do I do when no serious attempt has been made to give an answer?
example here
24.78.176.110 (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe no-one who visits the page knows the answer? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people don't get the answers they think their question deserves. That's the risk of asking a bunch of amateurs on the internet. As VW suggests, no-one may know the answer, or no one can summon the energy to understand exactly where you're heading. Also, flaming the people you're asking for help, as you do in sentences such as "Why do you people always have to change the question so that you can lecture on what makes you feel important to express" tends to dissuade potential answers in a terminal sort of fashion. It's natural to talk around an issue. Chopping off discussion in such a brutal fashion may be an expression of frustration, but it is none the less harmful for that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps asking a science question on the science desk would be more fruitful. --LarryMac | Talk 11:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's also possible that people were dissuaded from answering because your question touched on original research. The WP:NOR policy applies to articles, not to refdesk questions, and you seem to have asked a perfectly valid (if specialist and somewhat speculative) question in a reasonably appropriate forum. However, people regularly come here hoping to use Wikipedia to validate and promote their new philosophy/religious belief/scientific theory, and helpers may unfortunately have judged your question as falling into that category and failed to look more closely at it. I see no evidence of mockery in the responses you did get, though - just answers that pointed out other factors that might affect what you were looking for, which you dismissed in a way that made it unlikely the respondent would bother trying to take the discussion any further. The answer to your question is that you have three choices:

Do nothing
Ask your question again, perhaps rephrasing it to attract more responses (or trying the Science refdesk instead of the maths one if that would be more appropriate)
Find a specialist off-Wiki forum that might have experts in the field who could be of more help to you in your research than we can

- Ka renjc 12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can sum it up pretty simply: Don't be a dick. The first person to respond tried to direct you to the correct desk (which is, absolutely, the Science desk), and the second person accurately pointed out that there are other factors besides solar heating. You responded rudely to each, even though both of their responses looked reasonable to me, and seemed to be good-faith attempts to help you in your efforts. Even if their responses were not exactly what you were looking for, your replies to them were over the top, and dissuade others (including, for example, PhD astrophysicists like myself) from having any desire whatsoever to interact with you. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience here... Wikipedians have been very friendly whenever me or my husband have posted questions... My husband remembers user Karenjc specifically for being very helpful... he had forgotten a song and didnt know the words or the music... but she had suggested it could be Afro Celt Music System and he has since then been a fan of Wikipedia and its reference desk. He says he was torturing his head for years and finally he had an answer within hours of posting the question. Its unfortunate you didnt get replies earlier but trust me with several friendly Wikipedians around Im sure your questions are bound to be answered. Just a matter of time Fragrantforever 13:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)

You probably mean Afro Celt Sound System. We can be pedantic too! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember answering your husband's question, Fragrantforever - odd that his description immediately made me think of the very track he was searching for, but it is a haunting and distinctive track that has a special significance for me too. I'm so glad he's enjoying their other stuff, and delighted that I was able to help out :) Ka renjc 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your question wasn't answered the first time, ask it again. 82.43.89.11 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning a huge stuffed toy

Do you guys know how to clean a huge teddy bear? My husband gifted a huggggggggeeeee teddy to me its almost lifesize. 5 foot plus in height and almost 20+ kilos heavy. It used to look so immaculate now it badly needs a wash. It wudnt fit my washing machine. Was just wondering, how do they clean huge toys like this is it done painstakingly by hand or do we have people who specialise in cleaning huge stuffed toys... Any first hand experiences/ info would be appreciated. Fragrantforever 13:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)

I somewhat doubt that there are people who specialize in this. The demand for this kind of service is probably limited. One possibility would be to give the thing a bath in a bathtub, but it's possible immersion would damage it. (It could cause the stuffing to compact in odd ways, leaving the thing misshapen, and/or the interior might take so long to dry out that it could grow mold.) I think your best bet might be to approach it as a special case of carpet cleaning. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for cleaning stuffed toys found 373,000 results. --- Wavelength (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to take it to a commercial Dry Cleaning outlet. It's possible that some component (e.g. a plastic nose) might not tolerate the process, but it's likely that the outlet would know one way or the other. Alternatively, Marco polo's carpet cleaner suggestion might be a useful approach, as might the use of suede or furniture fabric cleaners. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cleaned a large fur-fabric stuffed toy belonging to my daughter some years ago, using a gentle detergent solution that we frothed up into foam. We worked the foam lightly over the fur fabric, being careful not to overwet it and soak the stuffing, then sponged it with clean warm water to remove the foam, again avoiding overwetting, before surface-drying it with a hairdryer and leaving it outside in the garden for a few hours on a warm day to ensure it was thoroughly dry. I bet Marco polo's suggestion of carpet shampoo could be used the same way, although I'd use one intended for manual shampooing rather than for 3-in-1 machines, as the latter contains anti-foaming agent and you won't get any bubbles. Ka renjc 18:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, your answers appreciated. I was actually fearing overwetting it and ruining the stuffing, I will try your advice and tomorrow will let you know the outcome, hopefully it should be alright. Thanks Karenjc and Marcopolo for the detailed responses. 78.100.226.87 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with the hairdryer. If the synthetic fur gets to hot it will change its texture. (This is why putting stuffed animals in a dryer sometimes make them feel all weird.) APL (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hand held steam cleaner might do it.--Artjo (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IQ test question makers

Do they have to be at the top of the range over which their test is valid (i.e., does a test that goes up to 160 have to be made by people with 160+ IQs)? If not, how would someone come up with a question with correct answer that they themselves couldn't solve if they were taking the test? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They'd look the answer up on Wikipedia of course! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, but actually the IQ questions are made to a formula. A computer could be programmed to generate them and their answers. In a question like "Raven's progressive matrices" there is a pattern to find. The tasks get more complex as the test goes on until it because difficult to find the pattern within the time limit. Given enough time, and with a pencil and paper, anyone who knows the principle of the question type should be able to find the answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good question. A person with an IQ of 100 and a lot of money could make a test that accurately samples people with an IQ of 160, by writing up a test and including questions that sound hard, and then — the important part — pay thousands of people to take the test and look for a bell curve distribution like the one at Intelligence quotient. With luck, the IQ 100 person will have written some questions that are only answered correctly by 1% of the population, some that are 2%, etc. With no luck, the results of the test won't look like a bell curve, so then the IQ 100 person would rewrite some questions to be harder (or easier) and then pay thousands of people to take the revised test ... repeat, until it looks like a bell curve and the IQ 100 person can claim that the test is meaningful. By the way, the whole concept of IQ is controversial; see Intelligence quotient#Criticism and views. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most IQ tests have strict time limits. A person with a 160 IQ might take 30 secs to solve a problem that a 100 IQ person would need 5 minutes to solve. —D. Monack ^talk 19:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given sufficient time practically anyone could answer every question correctly. It's the time that counts--178.167.179.162 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not! Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could you tell if the answer that only 1% of the testees get right is actually the right answer to the problem? For example if the question is "2+2=?" and 1% say that the answer is 5. Or where the problem has no reasonable answer, but 1% of the testees choose a particular answer due to random chance? Or where there are several possible correct answers due to the problem being ambiguous or not giving enough information? Or where the examiner is mistaken about the correct answer? 92.24.184.231 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a crappily made test.--178.167.179.162 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person writing the test has the advantage of being able to work backwards from the answer. That's a standard trick used by anyone writing tests - come up with the answer and then work out what the question needs to be to have that answer. It's usually a much easier problem than coming up with a question and then answering it (and you know the answer will be something nice). --Tango (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all bunk anyway. It doesn't tell you anything about intelligence, just about your ability to take whichever test you took. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question (which Tango just answered) still remains, though, doesn't it, even taking into account that IQ only measures ability at IQ tests? 81.131.25.169 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I have done practice IQ tests/puzzles, the most difficult problems seem ambiguous, they could have several answers depending on which interpretation you choose. The explainations given for the correct answer seem arbitrary and unconvincing. 92.15.30.42 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there usually huge variances at the high end anyway? As with AB I don't think much of IQ tests but I believe particularly at the high end they tend to fall over since you don't have any meaningful baseline to compare them too. [23] somewhat touches on these issues Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Height is a measurable thing but IQ is inferred in a very roundabout fashion and is not a actual real thing. My feeling is that in fact IQ as measured is approximatly a power of 2 of what is there - a bit like measuring the area of your skin rather than your height and that using a standard deviation of about 7 rather than 15 would give a much better relative picture between people. So an IQ of 145 would reflect reality better compared to 100 if it was reported as about 121. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you need to keep in mind the difference between reliable and valid scales. IQ is a very reliable measure (meaning that people will consistently test the same across different times and settings) and a reliable test clearly measures something. however, the validity of IQ is problematic, since no one is quite sure what it is that IQ is measuring. It's not measuring anything like the lay-person's conception of intelligence, nor is it measuring academic skills (though there's a loose correlation), nor is it clear whether it measures an innate or learned ability.

I always think of IQ tests as scientific 'mood rings'. just like a mood ring, the only thing you know for sure is that different people produce different outcomes, with reasonable consistency. Anything else you say about it is speculative. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Star Trek

What city is the capital of Earth in Star Trek? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the Entertainment desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed?

how the volume of questions on the REFERENCE pages has dramatically fallen since the QUESTIONS button was removed from the MAIN PAGE? 92.30.43.128 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed a drop in the volume of questions on the reference pages, and I'm here every day. Also, I didn't know that any 'questions' button existed or was removed. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the usage or knowledge of the questions link by regulars isn't particularly relevant to whether it's demise has made it significantly more different for random people to find the RD (which must be the OPs point) Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nil, I did understand that. That's why my reference to the questions link came after another sentence with more relevance to the original question. The point was, whether there was a button or not, or whether said button has ceased to be or not, I have not noticed any drop in questions on the refdesks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link that was removed, we've discussed it before. I had thought you meant agreed it existed but felt it was relevant to the discussion that you weren't previously aware of its existence (which is more of an aside then of any relevance to the discussion IMHO) not that you weren't sure whether it really existed (which is obviously relevant). Personally I have no idea if the volume of contribs has dropped off (although I somewhat doubt it's done so dramatically) but I would like some more statistics then the personal feelings of random editors (no disrespect to anyone but as 82 emphasises people of feel something that actual statistics show are wrong) however since the OP is the one who made the claim in the first place, they do of course have the responsibility to back up their claim. However I don't know if it's been long enough for meaningful statistics unless there really has been a dramatic drop (which as I've said I doubt) and the world cup would potentially complicate things even if we wait a few more weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally noticed a drop in overall activity on the Reference Desk compared with 2008/09. However, apparently the archive statistics don't support this; they show activity has been pretty much steady all the time. 82.43.89.11 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]