Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 10

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 10

Niiko

Moved to language desk.

WP:MoS editors looking for places to point people for help with page layout and graphic design

Hi, we get questions at WP:MoS from time to time along the lines of what kinds of borders to use around pictures, how to arrange the elements of a page to meet good desktop publishing and graphic design principles, etc. Can you guys recommend any links? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I searched the 100 links I got from a Google search on the Ref Desk/Computer archives on "DTP" and "Image Layout", no luck. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean other than layout in wikipedia? Otherwise there's a google search here[1], and nothing quite like looking at lots of examples of magazine layouts (glossy, newsprint, websites) analysing and imitating them. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I agree with your approach, but the question keeps coming up, I'll try the Google search. This was my reply in WP:MoS:

Yes, hopefully we'll write something up when the current discussions are finished. In a nutshell, the main problem with sandwiching text between images is that not everyone is using the full width of the screen, or using a high resolution, or even necessarily reading Wikipedia on a computer, so you can get some very tightly squeezed text on some screens if you put pictures on both sides. Anyway, I tried to find more information for you on colors or borders, but other than the text and links in WP:MOS#Images, I'm not finding anything on principles of page layout and design, in WP:PICTURE, or the how-to table articles, or in the HELP space, or in WP:LAYOUT, or WP:IMAGE. Can anyone tell me where to find more advice ? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Eureka. The best site[2] gives you heaps. Ignore the (ironically) clunky layout, and that it's meant for a wide screen, the content (range and all on topic) is good. This example "Getting Started with Page Layout"[3] supports your answer, from "Less is more" onwards. Googling "graphic design principles" gives you others to explore; but this is the best for starters. Julia Rossi (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks loads, I'll copy your answer to WT:MoS. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Werewolves Clear them Up

Could someone clear up werewolves for me? When a werewolf transform during the full moon I remember in a book reading that they transform and wait for the moon to wane. So that would mean that its like a woman's menstrual cycle once a month for a whole week? Do they transform back into their humans form when the sun comes up? Or do they stay like a werewolf until the moon disappears? 71.142.208.226 (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

In all the (modern) stories I've seen, the werewolf transformation is a nocturnal thing - the wolf-man is a man during the day. Whether the change occurs only on the night of the full moon, or for 3 or 5 nights is a matter of more controversy. Steewi (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read werewolf? Being fictional, they can do whatever the writer wishes them to do.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the werewolf article. It helped, but not a lot. I was just asking this question cause it still is very confusing. I want to write a good werewolf story. I don't want to make it sound fake or untrue to the werewolf. Lately, stories have said that silver bullets kill vampires. I remember when I was young wart hog when silver bullets killed werewolves not vampires. So I wanted to keep to that mythos. But I still need to know how I'm going to do the transformation. Anything the writer wishes them to. So could it be for a whole week?Cardinal Raven (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Why not make it so they only completely transform on the night of the full moon, and transform to a lesser degree as the moon wanes ? On a night with a crescent moon they could just become irritable and a bit hairy, for example. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea Sturat. Sounds good. Thanks for all the help.71.142.208.226 (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

You might also consider adding the element of Clinical lycanthropy to your story.--Lenticel ^(talk) 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Car brand perception

My wife has a Fiat car, which is pretty much a budget car in the UK. She is American and she told me that when she tells her friends in the US that she has a Fiat they will be impressed. On the other hand Volkswagen is seen as a quality brand in the UK, but a budget brand in the USA. The pricing follows the perception. Do the car manufacturers deliberately market their cars at different market segments in different countries, or is this something that just happened? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All "original research" here, but I don't know of anybody here in the colonies that would be impressed by a Fiat, except perhaps somebody who's stuck with a Yugo. In fact, I have heard it said that Fiat stands for "Fix it again, Tony." Volkswagen probably does still carry the budget image, going way back to the days of the original Beetle. --LarryMac | Talk 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Some seemingly very new poster ads for the French Citroen cars here in the UK are designed to drop huge hints that they're German in origin, or Germanic in quality. I doubt their direct equivalents will be used much on mainland Europe. And IMHO, the VW is very much a middle-of-the-road motor, no pun intended, and not exactly a quality marque. Theediscerning (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for a better example, Mercedes has a distinct luxury image in the US, where they only sell upmarket cars. However, I understand that in Germany they sell a full range of vehicles, including entry level vehicles and commercial trucks. VW, on the other hand, does not have a luxury image. Their upmarket brand, Audi, is a bit better. As was said previously, a Fiat would impress nobody, although the Montreal cab driver who actually got airborn driving me over the river in a Fiat certainly managed to get my attention. Unfortunately for your wife, simply declaring a Fiat to be impressive does not make it so. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here in the states, I'd expect a Fiat to be a small sports car. So, people that like small sports cars might be impressed by it. I'm guessing many of the "normal" cars Fiat makes would not be legal to sell here, so the brand isn't widely seen. Friday (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Fiats I've seen in the US were in no way sports cars, they were econoboxes. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't get the Fiat X1/9 in the States? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and before that, the Fiat 124 Sport Spider was also available in the US. Both were definitely "sports cars" in my )(and my friends') book. I knew a fellow who very much like his Spider.

Atlant (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing, I've only looked closely at the ones that looked interesting to me. Maybe I've seen others, and not known they were Fiats, if they looked like random econoboxes. I can't remember the last time I saw a Fiat (that I knew of) on the street. But, yes, when I've seen them, they've been little sports cars like the one Clayworth linked to. (Altho, if I saw that, I might think it was a Triumph or something.) Friday (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this website Fiat left the US market in 1985. Yes, the X1/9 was available here - there's even a caption in that article indicating such, but the quality was suspect (also mentioned in that article, albeit without sources). On this page, the first comment posted to the story reveals the perceived quality issues. I honestly can't recall what other models might have been sold here. --LarryMac | Talk 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re the sporty fiat, Seinfeld's 1967 Fiat "BTM" coupe brought attention in a prang. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bigger than Texas?!

There have been increasing references recently on eco sites to some sort of huge island of plastic debris circling in the Pacific Ocean. The references all seem to contain similar phrases which might indicate a spreading urban myth. Can anyone point me to a site that has photos of this alleged phenomenon. Richard Avery (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard, the oceanographers and flotsam boffins are onto it(eg here[4] in legit sources like the BBC,The Independent, news.com.au and google images[5] bear it out. One place says it's bigger than the US! scary stuff (the media I mean) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: Great Pacific Garbage Patch. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuk. Can we see this gunge on Google Earth? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They are mostly tiny bits of plastic, and with a mean density of 5.1kg/km² (according to our article) I would expect not.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The flotsam experts also speak in confetti terms, but theory fails the eyeball test with this plastic high tide[6] and this[7] captioned "The Pacific Ocean trash vortex contains more waste than the largest landfill on earth" from the article[8]. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Julia and Shantavira and Antilived and Richardrj - very helpful, it seems it is true. Now we wonder how long before we can walk from California to Japan. Richard Avery (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Note that Google Earth usually shows only the sea floor and no arctic ice cap when viewing ocean. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Earth is predicting the future. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does Yahoo jilt Microsoft?

I'm compiling a list of probable reasons why, bottom line, Yahoo wants nothing to do with Microsoft. Do you know other reasons why Yahoo may not be interested in merging with Microsoft besides its low purchase offer? So far, I have the following:

• Microsoft has added functions like transparency to dragged objects but has consistently refused to do anything about many more horrendous shortcomings, like providing a built in automatic duplicates removal tool in Outlook Express and Outlook, leaving such functions to be purchased separately through third parties or Microsoft Marketplace.

• DRM. Microsoft ignores the fact that digital audio signals are converted to analog audio signals to accommodate human listening and that analog audio signals can be faithfully recorded and reconverted to digital.

• Internet Explorer is incompatible with many web sites acclimated to Mozilla Firefox although Mozilla Firefox has similar shortcomings at sites developed with Microsoft applications software.

Do you know other reasons besides immediate financial gains or losses why Yahoo has jilted Microsoft?

71.100.160.37 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard Microsoft jilted Yahoohotclaws 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What else do you expect Microsoft to say? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While your listed items are valid reasons for a consumer to avoid doing business with Microsoft, they really have no bearing on a takeover bid. Since it is a publicly traded company, Yahoo's executive officers and directors have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to obtain the highest price they can. Yahoo thinks the MS offer is less than it should be, and that's really all that can be said. --LarryMac | Talk 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If that were true then a company fronting for China, Iran or for the former Soviet Union could easily offer double the Microsoft price, since price would be the only issue that Yahoo executives would be obligated to consider. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There would be other considerations at that point. As an example, look at the history section in the Unocal article. --LarryMac | Talk 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Other considerations indeed, especially when you read the next topic. So back to the list of other considerations, if you will. I would simply like to expand the list to cover issues which Yahoo might not want any part. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The business pages would be a good place to look for informed guesses about this sort of thing. Yahoo's objections aren't likely to be the same as yours or my objections (as LarryMac says). You might be interested in this analysis. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted, no one's list might be the same as your's or mine, which is my purpose here of developing one that is combined. 71.100.160.37 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But the point being made above, I think, is that nothing on your list seems in any way at all to be a plausible reason for Yahoo's reluctance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

True only if you are in such dire straits that you have no choice but to abandon your philosophy of purpose to survive. Assuming that Yahoo is in dire straits and only unwilling to abandon its philosophy of purpose then my question is what might the basis of its unwillingness be? Is there anything which Microsoft represents that Yahoo wants no part or am I incorrectly assuming that their are living breathing human beings at the helm of Yahoo rather than mechanical gobblee gooks manning the tiller? 71.100.160.37 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Many many companies do everything they can to avoid takeover attempts. (See Takeover#Tactics against hostile takeover for an overview of techniques to do this, and poison pill for probably the most popular one.) It is true that the officers and directors have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to get the best price, but they also have a personal interest in not losing their jobs. Generally this is much of the reason that companies hold out even in the face of reasonable bids. (I have no idea whether this is a good deal in this particular instance.) Much law has centered around the tension between D&Os' duty and their potential to entrench themselves, trying to define just how much a corporation can resist a decent takeover bid--see e.g. Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp. and Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.. Mangostar (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

hi

what are the odds that i will live to 150? i am 11 now. thanks. David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! We have an article on oldest people. It says that the verifiably oldest person lived to be 122 years and 164 days old, so no one in the past lived to be 150 (if we exclude people in the Bible like Methuselah, whose age may have been exaggerated for story-telling purposes). While it is true that the age of the very oldest people is going up (in 1837 the oldest verified person was 108), it's difficult to speculate what things will be like in 100+ years. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting in 2005 I noticed a serious trend where people were taking their health and diet a lot more seriously. I think there is a health revolution going on. If there were, and in the future we will have people routinely living to 150 and beyond, there would be little or no statistical sign of it now. So just because the average age in the western world is about 73 and the longest-lived person was about 120, that doesn't mean that both average age and maximum age can't be pushed up and up ad infinitum.

And of course your phrasing, 'what are the odds' is a bit naive. Chance has nothing to do with it. Genetics, mental health, geographical location, and the will to live all play huge roles in determining your 'odds' to live to 150. Vranak (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's tough. As the above note it is a major increase on the current age. It's always important to note that average-age increases over the past 100 years are said to owe as much to improving child-survival than they are to medical/healthcare advances (in the old days if you survived childhood it wasn't amazingly surprising to live to 70/80). Chance plays a role because...well because you cannot expect to be able to control/predict everything. What if your country suddenly gets involved in a major war, or your local region is hit by a tornado/earthquake, what are the chances of being in an accident etc. etc. Chance plays a role but most 'life' underwriters assess knowing that a large amount of the risk is in your health & lifestyle. With medical advances and future technology i'm hopeful that people of your generation can live for much longer, more active lives than your forefathers, I hope medical science can prolong life but perhaps 150 is too much of a change in too short a time-scale...after all any such technological/medical advances will doubtlessly start off the preserve of the rich, then slowly become more viable to the poor as the technology ages/scale of usage increases. ny156uk (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Chance plays a role if you aren't clear about which behaviors have a serious detrimental effect on your lifespan. They are of course the main inputs: food, water, and air. Psychosocial inputs are also critical of course. Vranak (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the number of super old people currently living, compared with the number of people on earth, you're "odds" of living to 113 are about 1 in a billion. Living 30 years past the all-time record? Good luck. Useight (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By this logic I could argue that the odds of one of those super old people living to be 113 are also one in a billion, while ignoring 'logic' their odds are plainly one in one, as they are alive right now (by definiton). See also destiny. Conclusion: calculating statistical probability is a fruitless endeavour. You're either going to live to 150 or not. Vranak (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're comparing two different questions "Given that I am currently 113 years old, what are the odds that I will live to the age of 113?" is obviously 100% "Given that I am currently 11 years old, what are the odds that I will live to the age of 113?" the odds are tremendously lower. The fact that anyone will live a finite and definite lifespan, does not negate the idea of using statistics to figure out what the most likely value for that definite number is.

You're suggesting that all probability is worthless. That is a silly position to take. The universe may have pre-determined that a certain horse will win a race, but unless I can magically see into the future, I need to use probability to figure out which horse to bet on.

Vranak, if you happen to know precisely how long user 79.77.*.* will live, then please simply provide us with the number and simplify this discussion. Otherwise, we need to admit that our data is incomplete and deal in probabilities. APL (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not be drawn into discussions that involve accustions of 'nonsense'. Best regards — Vranak (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a note that the next time I feel the need to argue that someone else's argument is nonsensical, I'll use more a obscure way to phrase it. APL (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that when someone hasn't the wit to understand a point, they'll often resort to name-calling and pejorative labelling -- nonsense and the like. Vranak (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that when people make nonsensical points, they'll often resort to ad hominem attacks on the other person's intelligence, so as to avoid having to justify, or even explain, their position. APL (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The average lifespan in the West has increased significantly (from ca. 35 in 1770 to ca. 80 now), but the maximum lifespan has hardly changed at all. That 108-year-old back in 1837 was almost certainly not the oldest person alive; only a small percentage of people back then had birth certificates or could prove how old they were. The maximum age is affected not by the "will to live" but by chance, lifestyle, access to healthcare at all ages, and above all genetics. Lifestyle affects the difference between dying at 40 and dying at 80, not the difference between dying at 100 and dying at 120. There are some studies that show that supercentenarians (those over 110) often have increased amounts of amyloid protein in their blood shortly before death. That may be a clue that death at or around 120 is 'programmed' into us.

Unfortunately, there are those who claw for immortality and who are illogically convinced that their own "will" can somehow save them from the common fate of all of us. Will means nothing if your plane is about to crash, if the driver on the other side of the median is drunk, or if your immune system makes a tiny mistake and allows a few mutated cells to develop into pancreatic cancer. Nothing. Nothing. --NellieBly (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan is of course affected by will to live. People with mediocre lives aren't sure that life is worth living, so they hedge their bets by doing unhealthy things that won't kill them instantly but also won't keep them around much past eighty. But to simplify, we could say that will to live is in turn determined by environmental and hereditary factors, so I do see your point. Vranak (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that 'will to live' affects how long people actually live, beyond the basics of suicidal behaviour, etc, is poisonous and proven false. Too many people peddle the idea that if you have cancer and really want to live, you can fight it. The corolary is, of course, that anyone who dies of cancer must not have wanted to live enough, and therefore it is their fault. Studies (which I should probably find) show that there is no link between 'will to live' or 'keeping a positive attitude' and surviving cancers. If what you actually mean is that cautious people who take care of themselves tend to live longer, that is more likely. Although they may stress themselves to an early grave! 130.88.140.110 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proven false you say? Proof is a subjective matter. You may be wholly satisfied that a certain proposition is false; all your friends and family may also be totally convinced. But no matter can be considered 'proven' ultimately. And that's a good thing -- as soon as a matter is settled it comes back and bites you in the ass.

Furthermore, saying that an idea is 'poisonous' is akin to making an accustion of heresy or witchcraft. If an idea is false it will be sounded rejected, if true it will be retained. There are no poisonous ideas, only poisonous poisons. Example: recycled hospital air. Vranak (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"No matter can be considered 'proven' ultimately". What? Really? Do you actually believe that? Do you actually follow such high standards of truth that even your own existence is uncertain to you? 130.88 made a valid point that the media-enforced belief that will-to-live can overcome illness is potentially damaging: even if one patient refuses chemo based on their idea that "they can beat this" and subsequently dies, then I think that idea will have done enough to merit the label "poisonous". Since the mid-eighties there has been a large increase in doubt in Western medicine, fuelled by flawed studies about the effects of alternative medicine, the "helaing power" of prayer and the human body's ability to recover. In seems to me very likely that these beliefs, which HAVE been shown to have minimal, if any, effects will have killed at least one person by now. To use alternative medicine as an example: why would it still be alternative if it worked? Every 'alternative' drug that has been shown to work has been snapped up by drug companies and marketed. If hope kept you alive then it'd be on sale in your nearest pharmacy. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. Vranak (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the actual research being done now, but hasn't it been suggested that stem-cell research could extend the lives of humans by decades? Completely artificially, of course, but no more than other medicines. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Are you the last of the "Final Five" Cylons? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi david. Barring a Civilization-ending catalolypse, you will live forever. See Technological Singularity. -Arch dude (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you are 11, I recommend that you please do the following:

• Create an account. This will let us talk to you specifically, instead of talking to a number (an IP address) that is shared between you and other users.
• Discuss your Wikipedia activities with an adult you trust: a parent, a teacher, a sibling, or whoever. If you insist on trusting strangers, contact me on my talk page: I will respect your privacy. -Arch dude (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But check out the article Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? which, in essence (and with no disrespect meant to the Arch dude) translates as, how to you know whether the Arch dude can be trusted? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet David, don't trust anyone over 30. Vranak (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That could easily be dealt with by eliminating the over 30s Lemon martini (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

30 and 20.

Written on my vitaminwater bottle, next to the "1 PETE" plastic symbol is the phrase "30 may be the new 20, but green is definitely the new black. Please recycle". I was wondering what "30 may be the new 20" is referring to. Is it some kind of pop culture reference I'm not aware of? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a snowclone. Most commonly when ages are placed into the phrase, they are a bit higher - e.g. "Fifty is the new thirty" - meaning people who are fifty years of age are not "over the hill". But marketing types can and will manipulate a phrase in any way they see fit. --LarryMac | Talk 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't want to click through, a snowclone is a type of wordplay exemplified by X is the new black. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For many many examples of "X is the new Y" formulations, see http://www.thediagram.com/6_3/leisurearts.html and http://thisisthenewthat.blogspot.com/ . Mangostar (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm all clicked out. Only a matter of time before marketing types made snowclone the new buzzword. Typical. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, the '30 is the new 20' quote would be used to indicate that essentially you're just starting on your adult life at 30 these days, as you at once would have been at 20, and are still young and hip at that age. But why use that on the bottle? Undoubtedly the makers and marketers of this product have done extensive research to find that their most likely market for this particular waste of money are those in that around-30 age range. The implication being, 'buy this drink and you're still part of the cool young group'. --jjron (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eggcorn is the new snowclone. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eggzackly! So Jjron's catch and BB's, makes for a snowjob leading to an eggclone. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Biscuits/cakes

Reading the table at the bottom here, I was startled by the caramel-and-chocolate covered vs chocolate covered shortbread. Out of interest, does anyone know if caramel digestives are charged the same VAT as chocolate digestives? (digestive biscuit for those external to the UK) 130.88.140.121 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd opine yes, since it is cakes & breads & suchlike which do not attract VAT. From the BBC news: "Under UK tax rules, most traditional bakery products such as bread, cakes, flapjacks and Jaffa Cakes are free of VAT, but the tax is payable on cereal bars, shortbread and partly-coated or wholly-coated biscuits." [9] --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaffa cakes explains the legal ruling that ensured they remain zero-rated for VAT. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jahr, das ist gut but a shortbread bar partly coated in caramel and then chocolate is VAT free, while a shortbread bar without coating or partly coated in chocolate is charged VAT. This was the puzzling thing about the table. So I was wondering about the situation when the base was digestive biscuit, not shortbread. I suppose I really need someone to check a recent receipt from when they last bought both, to see if they have the little VAT mark. 130.88.140.4 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There being doubt and uncertainty about the shortbread situation does not affect the digestive situation. It's difficult to understand the distinction the beeb alleges the vatman makes about millionaires shortbread. I'm guessing he's partial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose there must be some privileges to being a taxman. Declaring that your favourite snack is not a luxury, owing to the addition of caramel, must be one of them. Quite astounding when you consider that sanitary towels still have VAT! 130.88.140.4 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Willesden structure

I'm watching the fourth series of The Last Detective, which is set in Willesden. Several times I've noticed, in the background, a structure that might be a stadium, with an oblique arch over it. I'll bet one of you knows what it is! —Tamfang (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wembley Stadium? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't be sure because of the angles of the shots, but yeah, thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here [10] is the Stadium from a different angle showing the angled arch. Richard Avery (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)