Miscellaneous desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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.

May 20

One-dollar salary

I wasn't sure which Reference Desk to put this in, it seemed somewhat like a three-way tie between math, science, and humanities. Has there ever been someone who worked for less than a dollar a year? For example, a-cent-a-year? 71.146.10.213 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Steve Jobs had a nominal salary of exactly $1 per year, but that's above your threshold. We have an article One-dollar salary which lists quite a few very similar wealthy individuals. Tevildo (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves had jobs. Didn't get paid much. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, until the industrial revolution (and beyond it), it wasn't uncommon for workers to be paid in kind or in tokens, rather than in cash - see Truck Acts. Tevildo (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Company scrip... --Jayron32 19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back far enough, a dollar a year (or less) wasn't all that terrible a salary. Probably not enough for a full-time job, but it might have been in order for some small extra duty somebody took on, like, say, lamplighter. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a one-dollar or similarly low salary if you're quite wealthy, as the article points out, is a good way to avoid getting stung by a progressive income tax, thus the controversy about Warren Buffett paying a lower income tax than his secretary.--WaltCip (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion of Howe's "dollar-a-year boys" in C.D. Howe. The government paid them a dollar a year, but their companies paid them their normal salaries as a patriotic duty. This was in WWII.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying and formatting Netherlands phone numbers

I'm in the midst of internationalizing some modestly popular web software (we get about 7,000 unique visits per day), and our first international market is the Netherlands. I've just about finished, but the one area that's giving me a little trouble is phone numbers.

Netherlands mobile phone numbers start with a prefix that includes '6'. However, Wikipedia says that the "trunk prefix" for the Netherlands is "0", implying that one dials "06 <phone number>" from within the Netherlands to call another mobile phone in the Netherlands.

Is that accurate? Would you dial "06 ..." from the Netherlands to call another mobile phone in the Netherlands?
Under what circumstances would one omit the trunk prefix? (Never?)
If you know that the phone number you're dialing is a mobile phone, do people generally omit the "6"/"06" when writing it out, since it's implied?
If you wanted to canonically represent a Netherlands mobile phone number so that both Netherlands and US users could dial and understand it, would you write "+31 06 <phone number>"? (31 is the country code for the Netherlands.)

Thanks for the assistance. 216.30.180.20 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)James Franklin[reply]

Mobile phone numbers always start with 06.

I can't think of a single instance where the 0 would be omitted (excluding calling to the number from abroad.)

Generally speaking the 06 is always included when writing them down.

For calling a mobile number from the US the 0 should be omitted: +31 6 <number> Jarkeld (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, Jarkeld. Would a Netherlands user who sees +31 6 <phone number> know to dial 06 <phone number> or is that too much in the way of mental gymnastics?

216.30.180.20 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some users would know to change +31 6 to 06, but other users would be confused (writing from experience in the UK where I've been surprised at the number of people who can't make the adjustment). Dbfirs 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be behind such surprise, Dbfirs? A false assumption about people's level of knowledge, that's what. If domestic users are never told explicitly that they have to interpret "+31 6" as "06", that's hardly their fault. I've seen many websites, letterheads, etc where only the international number is given, and domestic users are somehow just supposed to know to not dial exactly what they've been given, but some other, unspecified numbers. It'd be like following a recipe, and when it says "3 eggs and 2 cups of flour", you're supposed to just know that this means "1 egg and 5 cups of flour". They're certainly not reticent about giving greatly detailed information about the multitude of ways we can pay them for their "services". Not everyone is a 20-something techno whiz-kid, but that seems to be the basic assumption in lots of cases. They all spout the mantra of user friendliness, but little or no attention seems to be paid to what the users actually need to know except when it's in the company's financial interests. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK, perhaps I should have expressed surprise at the number of websites that assume such knowledge. Perhaps we should campaign for international and internal numbers to be shown separately. The only completely clear way to show the numbers is: "International: +31 6nnn ..." then on a separate line: "Internal (or Domestic): 06nnn ...". Dbfirs 23:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the examples are really comparable. A better example would be if the recipe gave 500 ml of flour but you don't have a measuring jug marked in ml or l so you need to know that you can use 2 metric cups instead. Note that a mobile phone should have no problem dialing a number in the international format, it also has the advantage of working if you store the number in your phone and later use a foreign SIM card. I think many VOIP phones should have no problem with a number in international format, although less sure of this one (ATAs are another matter). I'm actually surprised it's a problem in that way in Australia. Here most large companies who want you to pay them, particularly those likely to bother with putting their number in international format, have toll free numbers at least for their billing department. I would have thought it similar in Australia, either a toll free or local charge number being the norm and the 'local' number being used exclusively for people dialing from overseas (and perhaps those with mobile phones if the company is too cheap to pay for that (and possibly some VOIP phones which lack access to such numbers). In fact I know when I was trying to help someone (in Melbourne while I was in NZ) find numbers for various Melbourne airport taxi and bus services on the internet, there seemed a surprising lack of a real 'local' number in any format, meaning you were SOL if roaming in Australia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of techno whiz-kids, I have no idea what the last part meant. What's SOL? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reference, for your possible enlightenment.[1] :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: the people who develop the systems that real live external clients use, often make assumptions about the clients' level of knowledge about technical stuff, and those assumptions are often wrong. Sometimes they get feedback that they're not making sense; but I suspect a lot of people can't be hassled with the hassle, and just give up. The service-providers no doubt have the "no news is good news" theory, but sometimes what's really going on is "no news means some people have no idea how to communicate with you to tell you that what you're saying to them is incomprehensible". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to would you write "+31 06 <phone number>", I would say:

No; the convention I see MOST frequently is "+31 (0)6 <phone number>"?

which still requires someone to know the meaning of plus signs and parentheses. (But it does make sense to me!) --67.6.113.51 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+31 06 ... is just wrong, it's either 06-12345678 or +31-6-12345678. "Would you dial "06 ..." from the Netherlands to call another mobile phone " yes, but you'd dial the same number from a landline. You wouldn't ever ommit 06, and even say it when communicating your mobile number to someone else ("Of course 06, and then it's.."). I don't think you should represent the number using +31-6 to make it easy for both US and Dutch users, it would look a bit suspicious as 06- numbers are hardly ever respresented that way. (one might be tricked into calling a Nigerian). Calling 00316... would work from any phone though. Actually, cell phones numbers are considered more suspicious than land lines anyway. It's more comfortable to do business with someone you call at 020- (Amsterdam) than the possible crook with a prepaid phone at 06-. There's even a company that sells "landline" numbers directly connecting to a cell phone to "solve this problem". Joepnl (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The +31 (0) format seems common in some places, I think it was even in one of our articles at one stage. I agree it's non standard and potentially confusing although I expect most people who understand the international format and area code norms for much of the world should have no problem working out what it means. However people who don't who try to input it in to something that does understand the international format are likely to have problems. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can still dial +31 6 ... from within the Netherlands. The phone system is intelligent enough to work out that the 00316... is the exact same thing as if you called 06... and it will bill you as if it was a normal inland call. You might find Telephone numbers in the Netherlands and Telephone numbering plan interesting reading. Astronaut (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are non-members of Mitcham Golf Club allowed to play golf on Mitcham Golf Course?

Mitcham Golf Course is part of Mitcham Common and thus open to the public with no restrictions on access at all. However, I cannot find any information about whether non-members are allowed to actually play golf on the course. They are certainly allowed to walk or even ride a bicycle on the course as it is public common land, much to the displeasure of the club members no doubt. But can one turn up with a golf club and balls and just start playing on their own without being a member? 109.230.233.53 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a public course, so you can play it if you pay a green fee. The prices are listed at the bottom of this page, and one almost certainly needs to reserve a tee time in advance. Deor (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can pay them, and I'm sure they'd be very happy to accept the money. But my point is that the golf course is located on public common land to which people have a legal right to access. This is a rather unique situation where the golf club do not actually own the golf course, and have no rights whatsoever to tell non-members to leave. Anyone can walk around on it or have a picnic, ride a bicycle, flout the club dress code, sing, dance, sleep, jump etc, but I am having trouble finding specific information about whether non-members can actually play golf on it . I've found nothing which says they can't (like for example some obscure bylaw from the 19th century stipulating that non-members must pay 2 guineas for the privilege of holding a golf club on the course between noon and midnight on Wednesdays or something bizarre like that), and the club website seems deliberately vague about the matter and doesn't address it one way or the other (presumably to encourage people to pay them). Nowwithaccount (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

Golf

16.

(1 ) No person, other than a member of the Club or a person

authorised by the Club, shall play or practise golf on the golf course.

(2) In this byelaw:

"the Club " means Mitcham Golf Club or their successors or assigns;

"the golf course" means any part of the Common which is for the time

being set apart for use as a golf course.

(from http://www.mitchamcommon.org/webyep-system/program/download.php?FILENAME=5-6-at-attachment.pdf&ORG_FILENAME=Mitcham_Common_Byelaws.pdf). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this refers to "part of the Common ... set apart for use as a golf course", which implies there are other activities that would be prohibited there, such as your picnicking and cycling. I suspect cricket and football would also be unwelcome.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is common land doesn't mean you can do anything you like on it. There are specific commoners' rights (red link, unfortunately - Common land#Law of the Commons helps a little) that apply. Playing golf isn't one of them! --Tango (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all a unique situation for a golf course. For example, when I lived in St. Andrews, Fife, the rather famous Old Course (as well as others around the Town) was (and I presume still is) not owned by The Royal And Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews whose clubhouse stands adjacent to the 18th tee: the land was municipally owned by the Town, and anyone could turn up, pay the Course controllers the requisite fee, and be put on the (rather long) waiting list for a tee-off date and time. Some organisations, such as the University, had certain blocks reserved, so a member of the University Sports Club (including all students by default) such as myself could play the Course (had I been a player). Moreover, anyone could walk on the Course at most times (excluding during tournaments such as the British Open), though they were encouraged to keep to the various footpaths, and this I and many others certainly, and routinely, did. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Song Written by Davy Crockett

I understand that Davy Crockett authored a song. How do I find the name of that particular song? 166.249.195.158 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he wrote a famous one? He was the subject of a famous song. Maybe you are a bit confused? --Jayron32 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I could find was Rock-a-bye Baby which "One source reports that Effie Crockett, a relative of Davy Crockett, wrote the lyrics in 1872 while babysitting a restless child."[2] But as the words had appeared in print in London in 1765 and the tune is similar to Lilliburlero, a British 17th century anti-Catholic song, this seems to be just a nice story. He does seem to have been able to play the violin,[3] (or at least, he owned one) so it's not impossible. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]