Miscellaneous desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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 7

New York subway

When was the first time a woman became a conductor or an engineer on the New York subway? What percent of conductors and engineers on the New York subway are women now? Also, a related question: I have read that there was a time when most engineers on the New York subway were Italians -- is this true, and if so, what percent of them were Italians at that time and what percent are Italians now? 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would likely find This book a good start for your research. Also, worth noting, is that this source from 1918 indicates clearly that Women were serving as conductors by that early date. It does not name any of them, however, but does confirm they existed. As that was only 14 years after the subway was created, and the article indicates there were quite a few of them (over a hundred by my reading of that source) it may be difficult to nail down which was the first. --Jayron 32 04:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know they were working as conductors as early as that! Thanks! 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did some digging around of my own, and found that the first woman conductor on the New York subway was named I. A. Lilly, and was hired by the BMT in December 1917. As for women engineers, the first one (apparently) was Julia McAllister, but I could not find out when she got started in this job -- one source says 1969, but another source contradicts this. Maybe some of you might have better luck with this? 2601:646:A180:C88C:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the dates 1917 and 1918, it seems very likely that these women were hired only temporarily due to male train crew joining the army after the US entered World War I. If so, it could have been much later that women were hired for these jobs on a permanent basis, and 1969 seems a likely date for that. But this is speculation based on general information about hiring practice at different times (see e.g. Rosie the Riveter#Women in the war-time workforce and Occupational sexism), and not based on any specific information relating to the question. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatched section references in contracts

Are there any technical solutions to this common problem? For illustration please see this agreement: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1059099/000095013103003300/dex108.htm Despite the I'm sure careful review by at least two lawyers there's a common type of error in this document. One provision contains a reference to another provision, "the Company shall be obligated to reimburse expenses under section 2.3". But it should correctly refer to section 2.4. This is a really common oversight in legal agreements especially ones that are much longer. I know in Word references to sections and sections can be linked together so that an edit to the ordering of a section will automatically adjust references in other parts of the document. But that takes time so often times it is not done. I wonder if there is some kind of software that instantly pops up the applicable portion of a document when the cursor hovers over a reference to that part of the document. So for in this illustration, if the cursor hovers over the reference to section 2.3, a pop up displays the text of section 2.3 and quick verification is done.

Muzzleflash (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP links to an online HTML file that does not make use of hypertext features such as Hyperlinks that enable the reader to access a reference either by clicking or hovering over. The latter feature is called a Mouseover or hover box and they are commonly created using the HTML title attribute or JavaScript. These are technical solutions that assist but cannot eliminate the need for proof reading.

The actual typo occurs near the end of Section 6 Term of Agreement. It only becomes a problem if the Company seeks to exploit the typo by witholding the expenses. A legal confrontation then arises between the standpoints (i) there are no literal grounds to enforce payment contra (ii) the typo was unknown when the parties signed the contract in good faith. The Ref. desk will not give legal advice on how that may resolve. But I shall comment that a sensible contract wording would have nominated an arbitrator for unforeseen disgreements instead of just "enforced by laws of Texas". If I were asked to arbitrate I might say "Company shall pay the Advisor expenses less 10% - and also pay me 20%. Let that be a lesson to you both." AllBestFaith (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a request for legal advice. The linked to agreement doesn't have anything to do with me, I just picked it out as an illustration of a typical kind of problem I see and myself make. Muzzleflash (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who suffers from similar problems in my line of work, I've always thought that some additional feature in numbered list would be useful, where you can set a bookmark in a piece of text, and then refer back to that bookmark and it will pick up the number of the item in the list which contains that text, e.g.

thing a
thing b(bookmark)
thing c
thing d (see (ref))

would turn in to

thing a
thing b
thing c
thing d (see 2)

and if thing q is added before thing b, then the ref would shift to (see 3). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any such functionality actually existing, but perhaps this will jog someone's memory. MChesterMC (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a lawyer myself (and specifically a lawyer who works on agreements like the one linked, although that is not really relevant to the question), automatically adjusting Word references sound like a nightmare. If I saw that a document did that, I would turn that capability off immediately. It would take control away from the person editing the document and make incorrect references far more likely. Hypertext popups or links would be handy. Just getting cross-references correct is not a big enough problem to justify hypertext, but someone reading the document to understand it would find it valuable to see what those references signify. Incidentally, in the linked document the provision in question is probably superfluous, so the erroneous cross-reference is not a big deal. John M Baker (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barboschi Railway Bridge

Where exactly is, or was, the Barboschi Railway Bridge (pictured), over the Siret River, located? What's its story? Sources welcome - I may write an article! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~We already have one, I'm afraid (or glad to note?). Eiffel Bridge, Ungheni.~~ Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm not 100% convinced of the accuracy of my previous statement. According to this article, Russian forces occupied the (Barboschi) bridge on April 25 (N.S.) 1877. According to our article Russo-Turkish War (1877–78), the invasion took place over the Eiffel bridge. Whether the two bridges can therefore be equated isn't certain, but it's a potential starting point. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo: Thank you. They cross different rivers. There is also an apparent size difference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. This book describes Barboschi as "zwischen Galaß und Braila", which may assist someone with a better map than I have. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps indicate a railway bridge between Galați and Brăila (if this is it, the 1877 bridge has been replaced by a modern Truss bridge structure, according to the aerial photo). The nearest settlement of any size is apparently now called Movileni - see Șendreni for our listing of the location. Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Google Maps shows the station just northeast of the bridge (at coordinates 45°24′07″N 27°59′19″E / 45.40187°N 27.98853°E) as Barboși. This has got to be the right location, whether the truss bridge today is the 19th century one (with only the approach spans rebuilt) or a later replacement. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge at 45°23′39″N 27°58′44″E / 45.3941°N 27.9789°E Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, on a Romanian rail enthusiast forum, is a discussion about the fate of the old Barboși bridge over the Siret River. (Judging by Google Translate, the conclusion is that the modern ruins are not those of the rail bridge pictured.) The old photographs there look a lot like the engraving shown here. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. Great team work, and great detective work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy proofing

How high does a barrier have to be keep a 3-month-old retriever puppy from jumping/climbing over it? Dragons flight (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for a doorway, a baby gate should do. Dismas|^(talk) 23:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improvise something temporary, probably out of scrap wood, and I want to make sure I get the sizing right. Baby gates are about 30 inches? Dragons flight (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enter the words _childproof gate_ in your Web browser's search engine to get text and images on products, some of which (e.g. catalogue items) will have measurements. Bear in mind when you're planning the support and connection methods that a retriever puppy can not only jump and climb, but also butt, lean, push on, and playfully crash into barriers even unintentionally and cause their collapse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can search for childproof gate. I'm still wondering if that is the right height. Dogs in general jump better than toddlers, though I don't really know how well a puppy jumps at ~3 months. Does it need to be higher? On the other hand, a barrier 15-24 inches high would be less complicated to build given available scrap. So, if I could reasonably get away with a shorter barrier that would also be good to know. Has anyone here raised a large-breed puppy who can give me some idea of what to expect? Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for safety or convenience? Actually nevermind - far better to have it too tall. If you only have 24" scraps to put together, consider a beaded curtain or something to go above it. Visual blockage can be deterrent too. Ideally, your dog will never learn that fences are things that can be jumped/climbed foiled, right? I've not personally raised a large breed puppy, but have plenty of dog experience, and a dog that has learned young that fences are obstacles to overcome is not much fun for anyone ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty of experience with dogs as well (5 at home, most over 50 lbs) and I would suggest keeping the puppy as entertained as possible on their side of the barrier. If it's just a plain room with nothing to do, it's not going to give them a reason to want to stay. Dismas|^(talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you shouldn't just build it for the current size of the puppy, but for the size of the puppy/dog when you still want to keep him contained. If this is just until he is house-trained, then estimate what his size will be when that happens. If this is to be a permanent barrier, even after the dog is an adult, then size it for that.

As far as construction, avoid anything where he could get a foothold, like a chained link fence. Solid wood should work, as dog claws can't sink into wood like cat's claws. You also don't want him to get splinters by trying to climb the wood, so make sure it is smooth. Sand it if you need to. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A widower friend of mine has a hyperactive Vizsla (now 18 months), who, after learning she could open the back door if it wasn't locked, eventually ripped off the meter high plexiglass shield he put on the door. When I was growing up, my father eventually made it policy not to latch the back gate, after our GS bitch either ripped through the shield, ran through the screen, or simply knocked the door down. It's not like she ever caught a squirrel, and it was a much cheaper solution. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to have an overhang near the top to discourage escape attempts. See-through materials may be a poor choice. It may be a good idea to make it so heavy and sturdy that the dog cannot make it move. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 Euro für 1 Liter Gas

Is there any explain why does Norway has the most expensive price for Gasoline if this country was having the most Oil platform? I mean, while the crisis and loosing price of Gasoline, Norway had to quit the job of many many workers which have worked on the Oil platforms, because importing Gasoline from Arabia was 3 ways cheaper than searching for Oil in the Atlantic. But the Gasoline Price hasn't got down, he is staying stable at 2 Euros - in other european countries the price for Gasoline has lost up to 40%. What is wrong with this country? --185.51.85.16 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with Norway. 57.6% of the pump price is accounted for by a combination of a Gas tax, a CO2 tax, and VAT. The cost of crude is about 28% of the after-VAT pump price; processing & distribution is about 14.5%. There will always be outliers in comparisons of taxation systems. Norway happens to be that outlier in fuel taxation. [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't completely explain the OP's admittedly uncited claim that there has been no reduction i8n petrol prices in Norway since whenever the OP is comparing to (a logical point would be ~3 years ago). I'm not sure there's a reason for Norway's processing & distribution cost to be extraordinarily high, so it's probably simplest to consider 42.4% which is still a resonable chunk of the price so we'd still expect a resonable reduction if the 40% average drop is true (definitely 30% seems resonable).

Besides even if Norway is a bit of an outlier, it's not like other countries in the developed world have very low taxes on petrol (except perhaps the US). E.g. here's NZ's mix [2] which is said to be 50% although the pie chart seems to show 48% (and I'm a bit confused why GST is less than 15%, I guess it come before one of the components although not the excise [3]). Either way it isn't that much lower than Norway. In NZ prices have come down since the highs of 2-3 years ago, although they're higher then they were a few months ago.

In fact looking a bit more, this claims rates in the UK are actually higher than in Norway [4] (both directly and via the number cited). Fuel tax seems to give higher numbers for the Netherlands, so either I'm missing someone or one of these are wrong.

But anyway, I think all this is enough to show there's no clear evidence Norway is an outlier in terms of fuel taxation (on the high end perhaps), at least if we only include the developed world or perhaps the OECD (which makes sense for various reasons and the OP referred to other European countries anyway). And petrol prices have been dropping in most of the developed world and OECD AFAIK. (Not nearly as much as the fall in crude prices of course.)

Presuming the OP is correct about prices in Norway, it may be because of the fall of the Norwegian Krone [5]. Alternatively or in addition, perhaps taxes on petrol have gone up. Of course the OP could also simply be wrong about prices not going down. (These factors probably mean the price hasn't gone down as much as in some other countries.)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second thought I just noticed the OP was referring to prices in Euro. This seems a little odd, since I'm fairly sure petrol is normally priced in kroner in Norway. If prices in Euro in Norway haven't changed, this is a little different since we then need to consider the fluctations in the Euro exchange rate instead, as well as the fact despite these fluctations, prices in other countries who do use the Euro have generally come down. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe OP works for a multinational company and gets paid in euros? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But petrol would still be priced in kroner unless they're getting it from the company they work for. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage of OP's income spent on gas would be determined by how the number of euros it'd take to obtain a liter though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that refinery and distribution issues also contribute major costs to gasoline/petrol, so perhaps those costs are higher in Norway. The actual and potential environmental damage can make such high risk activities expensive, when properly regulated. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norway trades crude and refined petroleum products in an international market, at the same prices as any other country. There are no subsidies. On top of that comes three types of taxation:

A petrol tax
A CO₂ tax
VAT.

There is political agreement among the major parties that the tax on petrol should be fairly high, to discourage unnecessary use, and encourage use of railway/public transportation, in order to reduce global warming and pollution. On the other hand, the taxation of electric vehicles is low, which in addition to various incentives has made Norway the country with the highest per capita electric vehicle ownership in the world. And if you wonder where the government's share of the profit from the oil industry goes, see Government Pension Fund of Norway. --NorwegianBlue^talk 23:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]