Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 April 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 5

Football (Soccer) Footage

I'd like to know if there are any websites on the Internet where I could find games that the South Korea national football team played. I'd preferably like games dating back to the 90s or early 2000s (excluding the 2002 World Cup games. If the commentators are Korean, that'd be even more fantastic. Jonathansuh (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Flying cheaper than staying?

Can it be cheaper for an airline to fly a plane without passengers than to park a plane in some airport? XPPaul (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not just considering those two factors, no. However, there may be times when they do fly with no passengers, say if they need to reposition the plane at a new location because of a change in their routes. StuRat (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

According to not particularly reliable sources it costs maybe US$ 15-30 per mile in fuel to fly a 747.[1][2][3] There are so many other costs involved, though, it's hard to make an judgment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would cost in the order of a couple of thousand dollars a day to park a plane like that somewhere but that's still far less than the cost of the fuel flying it round. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The other factor is that the airline may need to reposition a plane due to demand for seats at peak times - akin to the old railroad use of "deadheading".

Deadheading seems to be about moving a train crew without a loaded train (either by train or by some other means). The more usual way to move an air crew to an airport without employing them on a flight to that airport would be to fly them as passengers on an already scheduled flight. That is much cheaper than putting them on an otherwise empty plane to transport them. As for parking fees, they vary greatly between airports, but in the United States they are typically in the hundreds, not thousands of dollars per day of parking if the plane is parked more than a couple of hours (long enough to discharge and board new passengers), during which parking is typically free. According to this forum, airports escalate fees into the thousands of dollars per day for planes parked for more than a couple of days to make storage of unneeded aircraft at the airport cost-prohibitive. Certainly it would be cheaper to park a plane overnight than to fly it somewhere empty. No doubt, planes occasionally fly to a different airport empty if an airline has equipment issues, but airlines are likely to go to lengths to avoid that expense. For example, they might choose to cancel a flight rather than fly an empty plane to an airport to carry the flight. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There've been reports of airlines flying empty planes from London Heathrow for numerous reasons - to make sure they didn't lose the rights to valuable landing slots, as a propaganda gesture during a baggage handler's strike and to meet Australian quarantine regulations. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Service widow in army accommodation

If a British soldier is killed on active service, and his widow is living in army accommodation, will she have to move out, and if so after how long? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything directly referring to the matter. Most information appears to be behind a wall and accessible only to service personnel. However, there is a charity whose description of where their money goes includes the following statement:

"We want to provide extra help for those required under MoD rules to leave their military accommodation within three months of their husband's death".

This seems to suggest, at least indirectly, that some (or perhaps all) widows must vacate within 3 months. Bielle (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly OR but in the past anybody leaving the (British) services lose the right to accomodation but they dont just kick you out after three months, they just treat you as an illegal occupant and double the rent after three months. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Forget the last times move on! I just found a bit in JSP464 Section 5.5 [4] Bereaved spouse/civil partner can remain in the property for two years subject to reviews. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Temple

What was under Salomon's temple?----74.163.16.52 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sideburns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

that's one of your best lines in ages, Bugs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I need a "like" button for stuff like this. Srsly. --Jayron32 04:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

According to our article on the Temple of Solomon, we don't know for sure, because the religious sensitivity of the site, atop the Temple Mount, has prevented thorough archaeological investigation. According to 2 Chronicles 3:1, the Temple was built on the site of a threshing floor. Marco polo (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the OP is now blocked as a sock of a banned user. See User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this hinting towards the idea that the Templars found the Holy Grail buried there? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, it's the site of the akedah, which, having taken place a long time earlier, and before the Jebusites built a city there, would presumably have been some layers below Solomon's site. See tell and palimpsest. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

IS THERE a pizza that helps with weight loss?

I'm not willing to go blind, but if I'm to stop thinking of the italian fattener, I should never lay eyes on a slice ever again.

However, there's got to be a better way; there is no way I can avoid looking at another pizza while preserving my sight.

Has there EVER been a pizza made that helps us LOSE weight? I'd like to get under 200 lbs as soon as I can. Thanks. --129.130.211.205 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is, it's the pizza that you don't eat. Roger (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Portion control. You can still eat pizza and lose weight, you just need to eat less of it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work with me, as small portions of unhealthy stuff leaves me hungry. I need to fill up on healthy stuff. Although buying mini-pizzas or single slices might make you less likely to eat more than if you have a whole pizza in front of you. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Homemade instead of delivery or storebought also helps. I usually buy single serving flatbread or pitas, make my own pizza sauce from double-vegetable pasta sauce, olive oil, red-wine vinagrette dressing, basil, oregano, and a touch of Worchestershire sauce (all cooked down to an appropriate thickness), and a slice or two of deli provolone or mozarella. Put sauce on pita, cheese on sauce, microwave for 15-30 seconds to melt the cheese, tada! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to avoid all those carbs, you can make a pizza without the bread/crust. For example, if I'm in the mood for a Hawaiian pizza, I might microwave a slice of ham, with a pineapple ring on top, and some cheese and pizza sauce. StuRat (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a great way to get fat. Pineapple to trigger an insulin spike, and a big serving of saturated fat that will be soaked up by insulin-stimulated adipose cells.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The ham I use is quite lean: [5]. The main health concern with it is the sodium, not the fat. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Another option is to change the ratio of good stuff to bad stuff. I like to buy a plain frozen cheese pizza (Tony's brand), then pile on the healthy toppings, like fresh peppers. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All forms of bread are fairly fattening, and white bread (including pizza crusts) is especially fattening. It is good energy food for a day of energetic physical work, but if that doesn't describe your lifestyle, then you want to minimize all forms of bread and especially white bread. That said, you don't have to swear never to eat any pizza again for the rest of your life. You just might want to limit it to an occasional (once a month?) treat, and when you have it, aim for a thin crust, have just one or two slices, accompanied by a healthy salad with a light oil-and-vinegar dressing or a dish built around green vegetables. StuRat's suggestion is also an excellent one. The keys to weight loss are 1) eat fewer calories than you burn through daily living and exercising (so the more you exercise, the less you have to cut your intake), and 2) make sure that the calories you eat come from food that provides good nutrition and doesn't convert quickly into blood sugar (e.g., white bread), which your body will convert to fat if you don't burn it quickly and which will also leave you feeling hungry and make it harder to avoid exceeding your target calorie count. Marco polo (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bread is not the most fattening part of pizza. Occasional excesses of complex carbs are amortized by the body (if you eat too much, extra carbs are packed away into temporary storage as glycogen, and you'll feel less hungry later), but excesses of fat go directly into fat cells. If you want to eat pizza without getting fatter, lose bacon and pepperoni, use low-fat cheese, and pile on some veggies.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The best pizza for dieters is plain bread dough, topped with slices of tomatoes, whatever other vegetables you fancy, torn basil leaves, and feta (or other very low fat) cheese. No olive oil - or only a very, very small amount. Fat is the most fattening part of any meal. As Rosemary Conley says, fat=fat, and eat fat=get fat. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Many plant fats are quite good for you. I agree that animal fats should be avoided, though. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good for you in the sense that they don't necessarily clog up your veins, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fattening. They are still fat and unless you excercise to get rid of the excess calories it will make you fat just as much as animal fats does. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but still, cut down on the cheese in preference to cutting down on the olive oil. American pizza uses way way way too much cheese. --Trovatore (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true. Same thing here in Denmark. I have long since gone over to making my own Italian-style pizzas where just a golf ball size lump of real mozzarella chopped into fine cubes can easily provide more than enough flavour for one pizza. Tastes a lot better than that grated dry stuff that most pizzas here are being drowned in. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree in cutting out the animal fats and adding more veggies, but carbs are also an issue, due to the high glycemic index. As you can see, a lean pizza still has plenty of calories, mostly as carbs: [6]. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful link. "The fate of ingested CHO (exogenous origin) is well known. After intestinal absorption, CHO are partly oxidized and partially stored as glycogen in the liver and the muscles for subsequent use in the postabsorptive period. If large amounts of CHO are ingested over a prolonged period of time, some CHO will be converted progressively to fat by de novo lipogenesis ... Note, however, that this massive hyperenergetic high-CHO diets are in most situations of natural life conditions extremely difficult to ingest for prolonged periods of time with normal foods, due to the higher satiating power of CHO as compared to fat." Also check out figure 4 for an intuitive picture.--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thin-crust pizza in the Northern Italian style is actually quite a light, healthy meal, in my estimation. Simple thin bread dough, some oil, and light toppings -- my favorite is eggplant, thinly sliced. When I first saw one and it covered the whole plate, it looked huge, but it's so thin that it's actually kind of hard to completely fill up on one. --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Buy your pizza from a shop five miles away, and walk there and back. It's all a balance between the fuel you consume and the energy you use. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The key I've found is eating less of it. Pizza is a regular part of my diet here at the University, but just one slice for lunch each day. Somehow I've managed to avoid the freshman fifteen and have ended up losing 12 pounds (although this may very well be contributed to by my increased daily exercise walking to and from class and the fact that I don't eat very much for dinner, either). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

One good diet pie is Lutefisk pizza. It's a good diet pizza because it's too wretched to eat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Loads of British pizza chains like Pizza Express have menus full of low-fat and low calorie pizzas. Sometimes this is done by reducing or omitting cheese or other high-fat ingredients, by making the base thin, making the pizza smaller, etc, as discussed. Pizza Express' latest trick is to cut a hole in the pizza and fill it with salad[7]; you may view this as cheating. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to see they are trying (although "low fat" products often have just as many calories, since they replace fats with other calorie sources, like sugar). Meanwhile, American pizza chains are just as hard at work trying to find ways to make pizza even more unhealthy, like injecting the crust with extra cheese and replacing the relatively healthy tomato-based sauce (except for too much sodium) with alfredo sauce. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikipedia not socially acceptable?

About five years ago in French class the teacher asked whether we volunteered or had volunteered in the past for a charity or any other non-profit organization. One woman said that she did can't-remember-what for Red Cross. Then the teacher turned to me. Not wanting to just say that I didn't volunteer for any organization I said that I had contributed in the past to a free online encyclopedia called Wikipedia —I thought it was a perfectly valid answer. After that, the teacher —female if that matters— asked me in a condescending, or better yet, in a "Wow, you must be a huge nerd" tone how much time I dedicated to writing that encyclopedia. I would like to know why is it respectable to spend your time working for a non-profit organization like the Red Cross but it is not if that non-profit organization is the Wikimedia Foundation. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, you're basing the question on one person's reaction (you) to one person's vague comment (your teacher) about a particular activity. The teacher may not have known any more about Wikipedia than what she had heard from one of her students or a fellow teacher who didn't like that their student had based their entire paper on what we had in an article here. Dismas|^(talk) 00:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if she has changed her view in the past five years? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your title is misleading. Assuming you interpreted the nuances of her statement correctly, that is disappointing, but I'm not sure that means it's not socially acceptable to edit. And if that's what she thought, what a great chance to educate her about why it matters. Shadowjams (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am often very conscious that what I do here, and what all of us who take the project seriously do here, is a very real and tangible way of being of service to the wider community. Some people join service clubs, some people sell lottery tickets or other stuff to raise funds for worthy causes - like selling chocolates to raise money for diabetes research :) - some people volunteer for the army, some go into politics to make a difference. Me, I can make a difference twenty times an hour by improving articles that people I will never meet will read and enjoy more than they might otherwise have done. Or writing articles from scratch that meet a need for information. That gives me enormous satisfaction, and for me, that's far more worthy than doing the traditional forms of service that "society" might expect of me. Expectations be damned. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's perhaps of less tangible benefit than feeding starving people, providing medical services etc. Articles on history, political issues, science, etc, may well benefit society, but not all Wikipedia is like that. It can be hard for people to differentiate, particularly as the reputation of Wikipedia is sometimes for endless pages on Pokemon/anime/sci-fi show articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on notability guarantees that, no matter what subject an article is about, there will be people interested in it. That's because we get our information from published sources, and nobody's gonna publish stuff if there's no readership. Sure, readerships vary between subjects, but there's nothing extraordinary about that.

Also, I'd argue that our work here is just as tangible as feeding starving people, providing medical services etc. It may not attract every half-baked celebrity, but then we get to tell the world about the humanitarian causes the celebrities are supporting. Being a Wikipedia editor may not be the thing little kids typically say they want to be when they grow up, and I'm sure most parents wouldn't be suggesting it to their children either (they might if it paid, though), but it sure beats a $500-a-day drug habit (although I will admit it is just as addictive, probably more so). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. come now. One can argue that Wikipedia has a strong social importance without saying that contributing to it is on the same par as providing medical services, feeding starving people, and other difficult work that actually saves peoples' lives. I like Wikipedia just fine, but let's not be silly about it. I think that pretending that editing Wikipedia is similar to "actual" charity work is just an elaborate form of slacktivism. (It's also a form of charity that, by definition, mostly helps people who are pretty well off — you have to have some base level of technological prosperity to take advantage of Wikipedia.) For most editors, this is just two steps up from playing Farmville — something we do to fill the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Making knowledge available to people is of enormous value. It may not make that much difference to people in rich, western countries that already have access to a great deal of knowledge, but Wikipedia can make a big difference to the lives of people that wouldn't otherwise have any way to learn about the wide variety of topics we cover. The Wikimedia Foundation has recently entered into agreements with several phone companies in the developing world to make Wikipedia available to people for free on their mobile phones (Wikipedia Zero). The people that is aimed at don't have libraries or affordable access to the rest of the internet. They don't have access to higher education. They do, however, now have access to a wealth of information on Wikipedia. Giving people medicine and food is great for keeping them alive for bit longer. Giving them knowledge is what will allow them to get their own medicine and food. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The people who are actually out there providing those medical services and driving truckloads of food through hostile territory, in conditions of disease and strife, putting their own lives and wellbeing on the line - those people are far far above anything we as Wikipedians could ever accomplish. That is mostly untrue of the majority of people working in the "charity industry" though, the level of effort and danger is much less, and indeed approaches that of the average Wikipedia editor, like difficult journeys to the library. We all volunteer to the limit of our desire and ability, and any volunteer activity should be seen as equally good. My own satisfaction is the same as Jack's, contributing to a lasting foundation of knowledge, and what's more, contributing to the idea of free knowledge. While Tango is right that Wikipedia will be of enormous use to a rising swath of the world's population, it has had a similar impact already in widely disseminating knowledge in the developed world, and via a free model. How many commercial encyclopedias are out there any more, print or on-line? What vast advertising revenues and rents are not being captured by those who would put a price on knowledge? I'm quite proud for that to be my legacy. Franamax (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Mr. 98: Colapeninsula argued that WP is "perhaps of less tangible benefit than feeding starving people, providing medical services etc". I countered that it is just as tangible. I did not claim that it has the same humanitarian value, or that it is "on the same par as" those activities. Its value is immediate and lasting; that makes it tangible, in my book. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To the three above: the work of your average Wikipedia editor is considerably less impactful on individual lives than the work of your average person working as part of a medical, food, or shelter charity, I would argue. The work of Wikipedia as a whole — which would be pretty much the same in the absence of any individual editor — maybe be arguably quite large, but even then I doubt it has saved as many lives as the Red Cross and similar organizations. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia isn't a useful thing. I am dubious about the amazing powers imputed to it to changing the third world (the problems of the third world will not be solved through encyclopedia articles) by a bunch of people living comfortably in the first world (hence my slacktivism comment). I can perfectly well see why someone claiming to be an editor on Wikipedia is seen as less-committal and less-impactful than someone who has gone out of their way to do "real" charity work, or charity work that actually puts them face-to-face with those they are helping (like working at a homeless shelter or food kitchen), and so on. I like Wikipedia just fine but let's not be ridiculous enough to think that our dilute, individual contributions to it are really saving anybody's life. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be acceptable for someone sentenced to perform community service to spend the time contributing productively to Wikipedia. At least in New Zealand, the nature of community service seems to be negotiated between the person and a probation officer.-gadfium 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)