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.

May 19

Inland Revenue vs. HM Inspector of Taxes

Back in the 1990s I had a job working for the Inland Revenue in the UK. However, I remember that officially my employer was stated not as the Inland Revenue, but as "Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes". Clearly there was some legal nicety which meant that HMIT, rather than the IR, was my officially designated employer. What were the precise legal definitions on which this turned? --Viennese Waltz 10:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a job in the Valuation Office Agency and I seem to recall my employer was the District Valuer and Valuation Officer (both of them were the same person), rather than the VO or the IR (of which the VO was a part). I think it's something to do with it being the DV/VO (in my case) and the HMIT (in yours) being the person who has the legal authority to do the work according to the wording of the relevant Acts, but couldn't swear to it. It's a good question! DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If your theory is correct, and I have no reason to suspect that it is not, then Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes, or some current equivalent, ought to be the official employer of those who now work for HM Revenue and Customs. But HMIT is a redlink and Google has not come up with any legal definition of the term, so I suspect the office may no longer exist. The Act that governs the workings of HMRC seems to be the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which established Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so maybe these Commissioners are the current equivalent of HMIT. But to complicate matters further, I seem to recall from my time at the Revenue that "Commissioners of Inland Revenue" existed in parallel to HMIT and were certainly not my employer. --Viennese Waltz 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 act says the commissioners may appoint staff to be known as officers of Revenue and Customs, it also says they are responsible for "the collection and management of revenue for which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were responsible before the commencement of this section". DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in the National Archives, which says "From the introduction of income tax, Government-appointed Commissioners - usually the landed gentry - were responsible for administering and collecting taxes with Surveyors having a watching brief. This pattern is essentially the same today. Surveyors have since been renamed Inspectors, however, and now have total responsibility for assessment and collection whereas Commissioners resolve disputes but have no executive duties." DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of which the OP speaks the tax offices were grouped into two divisions. There were the offices of "HM Inspector of Taxes", popularly known as "tax offices", which communicated with taxpayers and were open to personal visits by taxpayers to discuss their affairs. There were also offices of "HM Collector of Taxes" to which the money collected (e.g. under the PAYE system) would be remitted which were no doubt responsible for ensuring the payments were kept up to date. The OP apparently worked in the former group. 87.112.145.168 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right. But what I want to know is, what was the legal or constitutional relationship between those offices and the body then known as the Inland Revenue? And furthermore, do those offices still exist, and if not, what has replaced them? --Viennese Waltz 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

Risky cordax

Hello I am going to a toga party and I could use some advice on how to keep it in proper form while dancing. My toga is very large (long) and I use a belt. Temerarius (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Cordax describes an ancient dance form that is not necessarily "proper" to perform at a modern Toga party regardless of costume. Juvenal in first-century Rome satirized it as "girls encouraged by applause sink to the ground with tremulous buttocks." Wearing a belted Tunic as illustrated is a practical alternative if you are planning to do much gyration. DroneB (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See toga: "...the toga's bulk and complex drapery made it entirely impractical for manual work or physically active leisure" and was mainly used for formal and ceremonial occasions. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing the same clothes to save time

Hi,

I've read about some successful entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg or Jobs who wear the same clothes every day in order to save time and be more productive. I've even seen videos about it. I have plenty of different tee-shirts but I literally spend less than 10 seconds deciding which one I will wear every morning. I believe that this "same clothes" rule makes absolutely no sense. Am I right or wrong? Thank you for sharing your views about it. Ericdec85 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the header. The RD isn't a place for debates. You may want to read more carefully your sources too. E.g. I don't see any mention of saving time here [1]. (Couldn't find any comments from Steve Jobs on his rationale although did find Obama who again made no mention of saving time [2].) Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC) 17:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they mean wearing the same style of clothes every day. If it were literally the same clothes, colleagues would want to keep their distance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Why Successful People Wear the Same Thing Every Day makes it clear that it means the same style and colour of garment, rather than actually the same garment over and over again. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most businessmen wear the same dark suit, white shirt and tie every working day, and nobody ever thinks it's remarkable. Then there are others famous for wearing the same garb: Tom Wolfe, Queen Victoria, all Italian and Greek widows .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson... --Jayron 32 15:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physicist Richard Feynman supposedly chose to have only chocolate ice cream for dessert for the same reason, to avoid wasting time on minor decisions. This was parodied/mentioned recently on Young Sheldon BTW. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale of saving time, credited to high profile business executives like Zuckerberg and Jobs, doesn't make sense to me, but Corporate identity suggests to me that presenting a single colour-coordinated style of dress may reinforce in potential customers' minds that this is a company focused on consistency. In that article, see Coherence in the Best practices section. Akld guy (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you crediting a rationale to someone who has never AFAWK given that rationale? Nil Einne (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stated that the same-clothes rule made no sense to him. So he rejects it. So I'm entitled to think that he must be asking for alternative motivations. Akld guy (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with mentioning alternative motivations and I never implied there was. (I do question whether a lot of the responses in this thread are really answering the question which seemed to be specifically about whether the rationale which appears to have been incorrectly credited to at least one individual made any sense, but off topic responses happen and in this case in some ways that's probably a good thing as I said the OP's question appears to be largely an invitation to debate.) But it doesn't make sense to continue to credit a motivation to someone when it's already been pointed out there is zero evidence that was the rationale came from one said person. There is actually a minor BLP issue here as you're effectively accusing a living person of something which you're claiming makes no sense even though you have zero evidence that they actual made the claim in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casual attire on modern corporate tycoons can be seen as a departure from the business attire of their predecessors or it can be seen as conformance to prevailing taste in dress in the general populace. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do people know that they actually live in Bethesda, Maryland (or similar unincorporated places in Maryland)?

The article on Bethesda, Maryland indicates that the community "has no official boundaries". The census bureau, the geological survey, and other organizations have their own definitions for Bethesda, but it sounds like those definitions slightly contradict each other. How could someone confidently say that they live in Bethesda, Maryland? (Or Silver Spring, Maryland, or any other place with a similar lack of clear boundaries?) 76.192.184.29 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the norm for many neighborhoods? This is just 1 level higher. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the north border of the Upper East Side transitioned from billIonaire territory to Harlem Lite in c.2000 feet, is 96th and the river still the Upper East Side? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, neighborhood boundaries can be fuzzy. But you don't need to put a neighborhood name in a postal address. I'm genuinely confused how people in Maryland determine which place names to list in their postal addresses. Sure, these places have zip codes, but a single zip code can serve several different communities. 76.192.184.29 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe townships? I don't know if Maryland has those. And the letter that only says Bethesda might just get there anyway unless the street number plus ZIP if given could refer to 2+ places that could at least possibly be considered Bethesda by someone. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bethesda collect any taxes from its residents? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The postal address is less official than you think. I've lived & worked in unincorporated places in PA. People decide for themselves what to list as their town on a postal address, and sometimes there's no "official" right answer (though some would be obviously wrong). As long as there's a zip code, the letter will get delivered to the local post office, and they will know the area well enough to find your house. Staecker (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly right. "Official" postal addresses in the U.S. are designated by the USPS. You can look them up here. What is the case is that postal addresses have no particular relationship to city/community boundaries. Makes sense, they're about delivering mail. This also means people can use more "familiar" community names for postal addresses, and that the addresses don't change every time local borders change. Now, what you've mentioned is that, to add confusion (okay, really because people would complain otherwise), there are sometimes other "acceptable" addresses that the USPS will still accept. Again, these are often familiar local names. Also, people can ask the USPS to change the "official" place name associated with a ZIP Code. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The census (mentioned in the question) uses census tracts. You aren't placed in a city or town. You are placed in a census tract. Each census tract has a very clearly defined boundary. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but what's your source for that assertion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_ct.html 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that these places are unincorporated communities. Such communities lack any municipal corporation, and so any boundaries they have are arbitrarily defined by other agencies, such as the U.S. Census (census tracts) and the U.S. Post Office (postal addresses and ZIP codes) which may or may not have any relation to the place in question; some unincorporated places have their own Post Office which may have the name of the community; but the post office may or may not deliver to the whole community, and some unincorporated places don't have their own post office, so they have addresses where the city is listed as the post office that delivers their mail, rather than where they live. For example, near where I live is Cleveland, Johnston County, North Carolina, which is a fairly large community which has it's own high school, elementary schools, newspaper, local youth sports organization, all named "Cleveland" (i.e. Cleveland High School, Cleveland Post, Greater Cleveland Athletic Association, etc.) It's a real place that people can identify with and know that they live there. Both geographically and population-wise, if it were incorporated and given boundaries, Cleveland would be a medium-sized suburb with 20-30,000 people. However, it isn't incorporated, and doesn't have a local post office, so if you live in Cleveland, your house "address" is listed by the post office that delivers your mail, which IIRC, could be any one of four different surrounding communities. Thus, your house address might say Garner, North Carolina, but you don't live in Garner; you don't even live in the same county as Garner, but because the Garner post office delivers your mail, that's what it says on your mail. You aren't in Garner, you're in Cleveland, which has ill-defined boundaries because there is no municipal corporation given authority over some patch of land called "Cleveland". There's just a population center named "Cleveland". --Jayron 32 15:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is postcode snobbery. There's also "telephone exchange snobbery" [3] ("Residents of Upper Leytonstone who were originally on Walthamstow (manual) exchange objected to being given numbers on LEYtonstone, a place they considered distinctly unfashionable.") 87.112.145.168 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived many years ago in that part of Maryland, I can confirm that there is some confusion about which place name to use. I think we just asked the neighbors what they used and followed suit (so our mailing address said "Potomac, Maryland" even though the namesake Potomac Village was actually a couple of miles away). Beyond the fact the house was in Montgomery County, there was no other official boundary to the various areas, and people sometimes referred to the area as Bethesda, Rockville, suburban Maryland or whatever. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's generally it, really. If you're trying to get a package delivered, you use your postal address. If you're trying to tell someone how to find your house (sans GPS), you might use something else, depending on context. Because of GPS systems using postal addresses, there's probably the sense that those are becoming a more universal means of signifying a place, but locals tend to revert to common usage, even if it is in conflict with other sources. --Jayron 32 15:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the fun, if you are not sure of your address, and you call up a nearby post office to see what address you should use for mail purposes, they won't tell you over the phone, supposedly to protect people's privacy. You have to go in person to the post office. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies! Very interesting stuff. 75.3.115.75 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain there's a website you can use which gives anybody's correct postal address [4]. 87.112.145.168 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if this data is provided by postal administrations worldwide. Here's the U S site: [5]. 87.112.145.168 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Designing observation space according to the TV screen dimension

I'd like to know the optimal geometric-optic parameters or considerations regarding observation space (e.g., living room) vs screen size & dimensions. It'll be nice to have some references with respect to the relevant ergonomic aspects. P.s., the question doesn't result from the fact that FIFA world cup is forthcoming. בנצי (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "optimum" because it is based on opinion. I personally prefer a tv to be above eye level. Other people prefer it to be directly at eye level or slightly below. I personally want to see the sides of the television without turning my head. Other people want to be "immersed" in the picture. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning your eyes though cause the fovea and foveola are tiny. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Optimum HDTV viewing distance.

Also the Dutch consumers association ("consumentenbond") has a helpful graphic on this external link 212.178.135.35 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

"Een afbeelding is meer waard dan duizend woorden in het Nederlands" —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information & data provided. The article cited and the german diagram, suited exactly what I needed. Bless you. בנצי (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

FAA regulations

Note: I am NOT looking for legal advice here, and indeed I would NEVER contemplate doing the stuff listed below, because I know that often the penalty for these things is death by plane crash; however, with that said, and assuming that the pilot in question survives, what are the legal penalties for: (1) knowingly taking off into IMC without an instrument flight plan (from an uncontrolled airport); (2) entering Class B airspace without clearance; (3) flying through the same Class B airspace in IMC without an instrument flight plan; and (4) landing at a controlled airport without clearance when the weather conditions are below minimums for any published instrument approach at that airport? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:EDA1:77AF:46A8:7B5 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) website has a section on Regulations & Policies that you should consult. DroneB (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does say that all these things are prohibited, but it doesn't specify the penalties for violation, and that's what I wanted to know -- if you break these rules on purpose (assuming you survive), do you get fined, do you get your license suspended, or what? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:1C8F:3273:DD79:5DE0 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page might have some answers.[6] Keep in mind that they could be flexible. Like if you do an unauthorized buzz in restricted air space, they might shoot you down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While not an RS, this source [7] mentions the possibility of a licence suspension. Most sources agree that you should seek legal advice and file a report to ASRS [8] as it generally can't be used against you but may reduce the chances of action. (There are some other stories here [9] of people who got away without penalty for minor unintended violations of a class B airspace.) You mention 'survives' so I presume that means you're not referring to a UAS but this case [10] involved a $200k settlement which started off as a $1.9 million case for 69 violations [11]. Also are you sure the FAA website doesn't give some hint at penalties? I'm not sure if it's there but 46301 [12] lays out a bunch of them although most of the maximums listed are possibly for minor things and you'd need to work out precisely what regulation/s you're violating to match it to 46301. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already outlined the violations in my OP, but I'll do this again by the numbers: my fictional aerial hooligan "celebrates" getting his instrument rating by violating Part 91.129 (landing at a Class D airport without clearance, and also making missed approaches to 2 other Class D airports and one major Class B airport without clearance), 91.131(a)(1) (blatantly entering Class B airspace without clearance), 91.173 (taking off into IMC without a flight plan), 91.175(c) and (d) (making a full-stop landing from a Cat 1 ILS approach when Cat 2 minimums apply), 91.175(f)(2)(I) (taking off in a single-engine plane when visibility is only 1/4 mile), 91.183 (not talking to ATC), and 91.189(a)(3) (making a Cat 2 ILS approach and landing in a plane which doesn't have all the required equipment). Question: Just how much trouble is he in? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:282E:2527:EEB:F8B9 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using lots of mirrors can you see to infinity?

Given a theoretically perfect set of mirrors reflecting into each other and a perfect set of eyes, can you see infinity?

What do you mean by "infinity"? I suppose that light could bounce back and forth infinitely many times between perfect mirrors, but that would take an infinite amount of time. (This should have been asked at the science desk.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Infinity mirror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because light has a speed limit, and so it takes infinite time to appear to be at infinity. So you are not going to see back further than the time to travel back to when the mirror was built. Also things look smaller and smaller as they are reflected more times, so it will get harder to see. Lastly consider that the object and you are going to block some of that light, so you will probably just see reflections of yourself, the light source or any other objects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Regardless of the reflective purity of the mirrors, the images should be reduced to such small sizes that they becomes unobservable, essentially instantly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what it means to "see infinity", but if there is such a thing, I suspect Douglas Adams had it right: "Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity—distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless." Matt Deres (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

U.S. coal burning power plant efficiency

Where can I find data for improvement in efficiency of coal burning power plants in the U.S.? Basically what I want to know is how much power 1 ton of coal produced 10/50/100 years ago in the average coal burning electric power plant vs. today's figures. I'm not particular about the time frame really... Just looking for a large span of time and what 1 ton (again, just an example) of coal would produce then and now.

I just don't know where I can find the numbers in a way that a person who barely knows how to wire a light switch can understand. :)

Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 19:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer your question, but it does provide you with a) examples of different ways efficiency can be measured and b) provides methods of calculating them. So, it may help your search and/or aid you in interpreting the results. Short version: it appears to be quite complicated. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One complication that becomes significant over longer time frames is the quality of the coal. It varies dramatically in its ability to cleanly deliver energy. Reserves of good coal may become exhausted in one area, leading to a different source being used, or crappier coal. Direct comparisons are difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "efficiency" is measured in percent of available energy that is extracted, rather than kW/ton (or whatever). According to the following sources, the earliest coal power plants operated at about 1% efficiency, today's average is about 33%, and the most efficient plant in the world is the Nordjylland Power Station in Denmark, with a 47% efficiency rate. These data are for world figures, not U.S., however.

"High efficiency low emission coal". World Coal Association.
"Coal-fired power plants efficiency| Level & Trends in the world | WEC". wec-indicators.enerdata.net (in French).
"Analysis: Efficiency of coal-fired power stations – evolution and prospects". euractiv.com. 25 April 2006.

—2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Sex

How can an 86 year old get an erection without medication? 194.126.80.63 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]