Miscellaneous desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8

UEFA 2012 tournament format

I know this is Sport, which belongs in Entertainment, but I'm hoping someone here can also answer.

This page includes the following paragraph:

The qualifying round is made up of nine groups of five or six teams, who contest home and away fixtures. The section winners and runners-up with the best record against the top five in their group progress automatically. The remaining eight second-placed sides contest two-legged play-offs, with the victors joining the hosts to complete the lineup for the final tournament.

I do not follow this explanation at all. I understand there to be 16 teams in the finals. Since there are nine Groups, taking the winners and runners-up is 18 teams already, yes? OR, maybe the "best record against the top five" restricts the the number of runners-up to seven (to make 16 teams?

But even then, what's the bit about the "remaining eight second place sides"?

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF linked on the page you cited explains in more detail on page 7. The group winners (nine) and the single team defined as the best runner-up from among all the groups qualify, and the eight remaining runners-up are reduced to four making 14 teams, then the two hosts Ukraine and Poland make up the 16 teams. Sussexonian (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balls -- I gave up looking in that document before I got that far. Thanks for your effort; I never would have read "The section winners and runners-up with the best record..." as meaning only ONE runner-up!

DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Possible to Live off of protein powder?

Can one live and grow healthily if one was to replace all sources of protein (meats, eggs, etc...) in one's diet with expensive protein powder that professional bodybuilders eat? All other amounts of micro- and macronutrients (vitamins, fibre, zinc, water, etc...) are kept at a healthy level. Acceptable (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be harder than you might think to eliminate all sources of protein from your diet except for a commercial protein powder. Pretty much everything you eat, with the exception of fruit and junk food, has at least about 10% of its calories in the form of protein, including pretty much any grain or grain product, vegetable, and of course mature legumes and nuts. And considering that you only need about 10% of your calories to come from protein (the Dietary Reference Intake for protein is 56 g/day for men, which multiplied by 4 kcal/g is 224 kcal/day of protein, which is about 9% of the 2500 kcal/day recommended daily energy intake for men; see food energy), 10% of calories from protein is a substantial amount of protein. And considering that part of an optimal diet involves not eating too much protein (see Protein (nutrient)#Excess consumption, avoiding too much protein on a diet that gets pretty much all of its protein from a protein powder would have to involve eating mainly (by percent of calories) fruit and junk food. Eating too much junk food in general results in not enough of the micronutrients and fiber, and eating too much fruit would go against the recommendation of getting most of your carbohydrates in the form of complex carbohydrates, i.e. starches, rather than simple sugars. So it's hard to see how a diet that's about as healthy as possible could get pretty much all of its protein in the form of a protein powder.

However, if the question is rephrased as replacing the most concentrated sources of protein (i.e., meat, eggs, dairy, legumes and nuts) with a commercial protein powder, instead of all sources of protein, that would be a different question. It would be less difficult to eat a diet that's as healthy as possible if you only replaced the most concentrated sources of protein with a protein powder, rather than attempting to replace all sources of protein with a protein powder. Red Act (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you eliminate meat and dairy from your diet, you may have difficulty getting enough vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, calcium, and some other nutrients from your diet. B12 is a particular problem for vegans. However the questioner assumes he/she is getting sufficient nutrients from other sources, so if you're getting sufficient nutrients of all types, then by definition your diet is adequate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High protein intake can lead to kidney failures, among other health problems. A group of scientists warned last year that some athletes didn't need protein supplements, let alone normal people. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making your own floral arrangement

I'm making a colorful bouquet, chocking in as many colors of roses as I can, and I'd like to know which other type of flower could I combine the roses with without taking it into tacky territory? I'd like to be really eye catching, in a good way. 173.2.165.251 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the color chart here: [1], roses come in whites, yellows, oranges, reds, and purples. So, then, the colors missing are blues and greens. Assuming the leaves will supply the greens, a nice blue flower might add contrast. We could also go with blacks, greys, or browns. Brown might work well with a red/orange/yellow color scheme. What brown items could you use ? Perhaps cattails ? Or, if you want to go another way, you could just use white roses, which would go with just about any other flower you wanted to add for color. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue freesia or lisianthus work well with roses. The traditional florist would fill the gaps with gypsophila or asparagus fern, or maybe you could update it by using cut banana leaves, as green is a good offset for colourful flowers. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, all very helpful! 173.2.165.251 (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social rights of the employees of an Irish company

Hi,

I'm working for the airline Ryanair and our work conditions are terrible, compared to the social rights of any European worker (not only for the airlines).

I'd like to know if all of this is really legal. They tell us it is cause we work under an Irish contract. But are really the workers' rights so bad in Ireland?

A few examples: I'm paid only for my flight time, not when I work on the ground, I don't get extra money for food or transportation, I had to pay a lot for my training and for my uniform, the company is always threatening us and we can't join a union. The company does not give us extra money for delays and we have to pay for our transportation when they send us to another base. It that really legal? Thanks for helping me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.170 (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give legal advice, sorry. You could contact a trade union, Irish or British; they will speak to you even if you feel unable to join. Or the Citizens Advice Bureau. Ask them whether your contract comes under UK or Republic of Ireland law. It might be useful to a lot of people if you could get that cleared up. I spoke to young people working as "couriers" (=cleaners) for the camping holiday companies in Europe, and they thought they weren't covered by minimum wage legislation in any country. Best of luck with your enquiries. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief summary of Irish employment rights can be found here and on the offical NERA website here. This page, from the Citizens Information Board, suggests it is illegal to prohibit union membership (but there may be caveats to that). I would strongly recommend looking over those, summarising what you feel to be the main problems, and writing to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for advice on how to proceed. Shimgray | talk | 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to try to organize your coworkers or seek other recourse, of course you want to proceed with great care. Big corporations have ways of making life difficult for those they perceive as troublemakers. Those corporation's expensive lawyers have no doubt figured out countermeasures they can take without violating the letter of the law. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is where bomb-throwing and assassination traditionally come into the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Socialist Organisation, You can't blow up a social relationship, Brisbane, Queensland: LSO, 1982. (available online)… Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a brief paragraph with two references here: Ryanair#Employment relations. See also: Labour law, European labour law, Labor rights, Collective bargaining and Occupational safety and health. There are other articles on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Trades Union Congress. (Everyone's assuming you're in the Republic of Ireland, but of course international airlines employ people in many countries.) These are general introductory articles that don't address your specific situation, but as said above, Wikipedia can't give legal advice. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the particulars but in most cases I would suggest adjudication if there are real problems and a company is being difficult. If there are valid grounds for a complaint then companies will normally start talking properly rather than go to adjudication. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the questioner was not mainly in the Republic of Ireland, from the wording of the question. If cabin crew, they might frequently move between countries. A website indicates that Ryan Air employees in Italy after a court case gained the right to join a union in Italy although Ryan Air argued they should not. A first step would seem to be to establish if a contract under Irish law is correct or whether English or another country's legislation should apply. It is really complex. It might be worth writing to the International Labor Organisation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Against Corruption

Dear Sir / Madam, Start an NGO with <remainder redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeyChitnis.Indian (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the reference desk of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which is not politically affiliated to any organization. It is not a forum where you can solicit the votes for/against any motion whatsoever its intentions are. You are advised to contact local groups that might be taking part in the protests that are going on in national capital of India or in couple of other cities. Alternatively, you can get involved in online groups such as in Facebook which might be gearing themselves up for some concrete action. - DSachan (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have redacted a bunch of inappropriate material from this post. Looie496 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution and Wikipedia

So, I was wondering, just how much pollution is Wikipedia responsible for? Being one of the most popular websites, and spending millions to power their servers it must be quite a sum. Could someone please let me know the numbers as well as how much is paid for this electricity. Most of you probably already see why I'm asking this, so, for the second part, how much would it cost for Wikipedia to switch over to using clean/renewable energy sources rather than what it is currently using ( I assume the same as the general populace as I have not seen them advertise elsewise anywhere (unlike google)). I am sure a vast majority of editors would be in favor of promoting the use of cleaner energy (Florida gets 4% of energy from renewable sources - appauling when you look at say Quebec at over 97%). I am also sure that if editors began demanding that Wikipedia switch to a more ethical source than Wikipedia would switch over as, well what is Wikipedia if not wholly the editors who write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have to have the renewable resource available. Quebec has waterfalls and to spare; Florida is in the midst of a drought. The drought is temporary, we hope, but there still are not the local resources that Quebec (and most of Canada) has available. Bielle (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference between Florida and Canada is not only the amount of water per person, there is also a dramatic difference in terrain. Quebec and other parts of Canada are able to take advantage of vast hydropower not only because they have abundant water, but also because they have plenty of hydraulic head, which Florida, with its flat terrain, lacks. Marco polo (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of supporting movements, please do not refer to the generality of editors as supporting anything other than a neutral point of view. If the information Wikipedia supplies helps to make things better then well and good. About the closest I'll get to supporting any petitions or suchlike here though is support for extending the reach of Wikipedia or improving its content. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but who told you the WMF spends millions powering their servers?

The financial section of the 2009-2010 report is here [2]. I would guess the server power bill either comes under 'Internet hosting' or 'Operating' but not both. If it comes under internet hosting you can see it wasn't even a million in 2009 (financial year) and in 2010 (financial year) the total was slightly over (but power bill would likely be under). If it comes under operating then in 2010 while the total is nearly $4 million which I guess you could say is 'millions' but it's difficult to imagine the server power bill is more then half that so that would be under $2 million (probably less). And in 2009 operating it self was under $1.3 million in total.

For the July 2010 - December 2010 period [3] internet hosting was $642k, doubling that you don't even end up with $1.3 million. Operating seems to have been broken down further and the only one over $1 million (i.e. $2 million if doubled) is 'outside contract services' but I'm pretty sure most of the servers are run by the WMF so it seems that wouldn't be a significant part of their power bill.

So again where is this 'millions' coming from? The low amount the WMF spends (in general) on hosting for a website of their popularity is fairly well known so it's a rather strange claim.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for your replies, even though they did not answer my key questions of how much does wikipedia pollute and how much would it cost to stop this. The link you proved Nil Einne was helpful though, and when I said millions I only meant that it is in the millions, as in above 1 million, which it is. To Dmcq, I must reply that most businesses are not in the business of supporting movements, many businesses would be very pleased still be able to use child and slave labour, who would be working 14hours days, and break a slew of other labour laws we take for granted, but luckily for the majority of us, the people, the ones who often forget that they do have the power once united, came together to force our employeers to change their ways for the benefit of us all. Wikipedia's purpose is irrelevant to what I propose, in the same way that a nuclear power plant's workers can demand a dental plan, even though the purpose of the plant is not to supply dental coverage to citizens. I've also done some more research and found that electricity prices are the same in both Florida and Quebec (merely two examples which show price and cleanliness are not correlated). But of course the servers do not have to move to use clean energy as there are businesses which one can subscribe to like Bullfrog Power which supplies only clean energy to your business, or Wikipedia could do like Walmart or Google and produce its own power, or at least a part of it through small items like wind turbines or solar panels.

If a number of wikipedians did strongly support a shift to clean energy, then I know we can force those who own wikipedia to switch as Wikipedia knows they must appease us as the quality would fall substantially if the number of experienced editors ever dropped lower than the currently already low and dropping numbers. Also they know that we volunteers are irreplacable, they already have saturated their possible volunteer editor bases. I think I'll move this over to the village pump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you are hinging on an incorrect assumption. Yes, a business will generally attempt to do what will bring the most profit, such as your example giving up child/slave labor. Wikipedia is neither a business nor for profit; how many advertisements have you seen on here? Indeed, the only advertisements I have seen are to donate to the cause. That brings up the next point, if enough people stopped donating and editing until Wikipedia invested heavily in clean energy that it stopped being a viable project, I believe that Wikipedia would come to a screeching and permanent halt. Perhaps those who "own" Wikipedia would try to shift (but I don't think it would be possible to shift, not without a lot more money), but I can't help but think that they would just throw in the towel and pull the plug on those servers. Falconus^{p t c} 03:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a reference desk, please provide some evidence it is even above 1 million. The figures I provided I have provided, which you thanked me for but apparently didn't take the time to analyse in depth, are unclear on that point but lean towards it probably doesn't.

For example, if the power usage is included in the 'internet hosting' fee it is very unlikely it was above 1 million in the 2010 financial year unless we presume internet hosting covered nearly nothing else like internet connection fees which is a bit of an extreme assumption. From the July 2010 to December 2010 figures there is a chance it may top 1 million in the 2011 financial year, but this presumes other things like the internet connection fees and whatever else is only a relatively small percentage of what's covered internet hosting, which is possible but for which no evidence has been provided.

Presuming it is in the 'operating' field, then while it could be in 2010 financial year although we really have no idea what is covered there. But the good thing is we have the July 2010 - December 2010 figures with more detail. If we go back to that, we can see there is 'Travel, Entertainment, and Meetings' which is the only one to top $500k besides internet hosting and salaries and wages (which are both covered separately in the 2010 financial year) and the 'outside contract services' (which as I said is unlikely to cover much of the server power bill). 'Bank fees' is close enough to $500k that the total in the 2011 financial year could top $1 million. But I think we can all agree the power usage for servers aren't likely to be included in either of those. 'Capital expenditures' was estimated to top 1 million in the annual plan but only barely and again we have to presume this covers nearly nothing else for the power bill to be above $1 million. In other words, it seems most likely if power usage is covered in something other then 'internet hosting' it's not going to top 1 million in the 2011 financial year. So unless we presume the power bill has dropped quite a bit since 2010 then it seems quite unlikely it topped 1 million in 2010 either.

BTW saying that anything above 1 million is 'spending millions' (or similar) is a very unusual usage. (The same for 'thousands' or 'hundreds' or 'tends'.) Particularly since by most normally definitions of the word, anything below 2 million is not 'millions' since it is only 1 million + something less then 1 million (i.e. thousands and hundreds and tens etc + 1 million). 2 million is technically 'millions' (hence why in my first reply I emphasised anything below 2 million) but although I'm not a WP:RD/L regular I'm fairly confident in saying 2 million is 'spending millions' would also be considered a fairly unusual usage (except perhaps by a media organisation interested in blowing something up in to a bigger deal).

P.S. If you do want to actual start a cause somewhere, may I suggest you actually try to find out the server power bill, Meta:Wikimedia Forum may be a place to start. And having found it out, even if it does top $1 million may I suggest if it is under $2 million (or probably under $3 million to be on the safe side) you avoid claiming they are spending millions since as I said, I think most people are going to find this an unusual usage and call in to question your motives and cause. An alternative it to campaign on this platform for the next board elections. If your cause is really that important to people you should have no trouble getting elected and then hopefully pushing your ideas to the rest of the board. Although again, I would suggest you make an effort to find actual figures and choose your words cautiously in your campaign.

P.P.S. Looking at the 2009-2010 annual report which I downloaded but hadn't checked since I found the seperate financial I see they were planning to build a new data centre in Virginia as their primary data centre although the Florida one will be maintained as a backup and for geographical spread. It seems this is already well under way [4] and is now awaiting connectivity. Guess you missed the boat on the Quebec proposal.

Edit: Actually looking more closely I came across Meta:Wikimedia servers which suggests I wasn't thinking properly about wikimedia owning and operating their data centres themselves, they're in fact in Colocation centres (which in retrospect isn't surprising). That being the case, the power bill or at least part of it may come under 'Outside Contract Services' in the 2010 mid year which changes things somewhat. The reason I say 'part' is I guess there could be a power bill for the servers themselves and a bill which is a percentage of the air conditioning etc for the colocation centre and these could be covered under different areas of the expenses. Either way, while I still have doubts the bill is over $1 million it's looking slightly more likely now.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information Nil Einne, and for the post at the forum, I have also posted the idea for changing over to clean energy at Jimbo Wales' talk page which has gathered some discussion. It is nice to know that wikipedia does not actual own any infrastructure but merely hardware which can of course be relocated at a low cost. It is also sad to realise that wikipedia's European server is located in a nation, the Netherlands, which gathers 90% of its electricity from fossil fuels, even when there are other nations with cheaper electricity which comes from much cleaner sources and also have suitable information laws such as Sweden.

To Falconus, you still haven't said what is this "incorrect assumption" of mine, Wikipedia is a business, it does use large quantities of energy from fossil fuels, editors do have the power to say what Wikipedia does, what is wrong? 205.210.143.36 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit charitable organization that operates Wikipedia. It does not operate a business in the sense of returning a dividend to shareholder(s). Its only external business relation is as a consumer of goods and services and the service we are talking about is electric power. Editors have a right to say what they think Wikipedia should do but they have no right to dictate what Wikipedia does. The OP is clearly canvassing to rouse a pressure group to "force those who own wikipedia to switch". Without prejudice to the OP's claim that there is a more ethical power source than Wikipedia now uses, the OP should not be using the Ref. Desk for campaigning which our guideline states explicitly may be seen as disruptive. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can promote environmentally more responsible use of computer technology, by means of its articles on related topics. You are free to improve those articles. Please see Category:Electronics and the environment.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Cuddlyable3, Wikipedia is a business. "Editors...have no right to dictate what Wikipedia does"...that was true right up to the second about a decade ago when Wikipedia became 100% reliant upon editors. Feel free to join the more real discussion taking place at Jimbo Wales' talk page though. This thread was truely simply me seeking numbers oin wikipedia and pollution. The advocacy will be happening later at Village pump, which is of course a page dedicated to advocacy. 205.210.143.51 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]