Revision as of 16:36, 3 September 2017

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/M

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 29

Why are train systems in large old cities like London and New York so complicated?

It's true that services from both Waterloo and Victoria funnel into Clapham Junction, which is the gateway to the south and the south west, but as I understand it services from the south east which do not terminate at London Bridge or Cannon Street stop at Waterloo (East) before reaching Charing Cross. Also, some Victoria services don't go anywhere near Clapham Junction and serve the south east. Indeed, I once made the mistake of boarding a train at London Bridge for Victoria only to find it took a circuitous route and didn't get there for over an hour. (The same journey can be done in the reverse direction). Passengers from Southend have a choice of two commuter routes, one into Fenchurch Street and one into Liverpool Street. Some trains on the Fenchurch Street line run into Liverpool Street. Passengers for Cambridge can travel from either King's Cross or Liverpool Street, for Oxford from Marylebone or Paddington, and for Reading from either Paddington or Waterloo. Do the train services of other countries' capital cities display this flexibility? Our article Clapham Junction says it is the busiest station in Europe. Are there others elsewhere which are busier, and if so, which are they? 92.8.219.206 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're header asks about New York, but your question lists places in London. I'm not sure I follow. To answer in general, transport systems are generally a bit heirarchical: There are commuter rail systems that serve to get people mainly from the suburbs and exurbs to the central city, then there are public transportation options in the central city, like bus and subway and light rail which are designed to get around the central city. So you really have to consider what the purpose is: Are commuters trying to get from the outside of the city in to the city? Or are the commuters trying to get from one part of the city to another? Different purposes require different systems. Commuter rail can be diurnal: You basically need to deal with two rush hours, mostly everyone coming in in the morning, and everyone going out in the evening. Once in the city, there's much less directionality and timing, as people are going from anywhere to anywhere, so bus and subway routes will often keep regular schedules throughout the day. You don't want the same trains getting people into the city ALSO being used to move people around the city, because those are two different purposes. For example, a train from Brentwood, Essex into Liverpool Street station is basically running everyone in during the morning, and running everyone home again in the evening. That's a very different schedule than trying to get people between any two stations in central London, which are basically running everyone in all directions at all times. To keep the system efficient, you need two systems (in this case TfL Rail and the London Underground). TfL rail becomes inefficient if it also has to run people back and forth between local stops in London, and the Underground would not work well if they had to take time to run people all the way out to Brentwood every morning and evening. Of course, real systems are a bit messier, but in general, efficient public transportation doesn't run everything to all locations at all times. You need to understand who is traveling where and at what times and then design a system that gets them where they need to go efficiently. --Jayron32 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to add that are a lot of railway networks that do combine the two roles of linking suburbs to the city and connecting points within the city. There's not really a good English term for them, but transport nerds often use the German term and call them S-Bahns. Merseyrail is possibly the most extreme example of a "do everything" railway in an English-speaking country - it runs far out into the towns around Liverpool, but also forms a dense underground network in central Liverpool and Birkenhead. In terms of timetabling, a big spidery network can actually be quite efficient: the Merseyrail Wirral line for instance has four branches, which means that to get a train every 5 minutes around the central loop, each branch only needs a service every 20 minutes or so. Similarly, the Rhine-Main S-Bahn has 8 lines sharing the tunnels through central Frankfurt, with a train every 2-3 minutes - but each one takes a different branch once outside the city, and those only need a quarter-hourly or half-hourly service. Smurrayinchester 08:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you forgotten already that you (and others) answered the header question about New York a few days ago? It's now been archived, see . For some reason best known to himself, the OP of the London question (who was one of the respondents to the New York question) has reused the New York heading for the London question, instead of making a new heading. --Viennese Waltz 07:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You also need to remember that the British railway network was built by private, commercial companies who were in competition with each other for passenger and freight traffic. The current network has been simplified, but there are still quite a few duplicate routes which originate with that competition. It would have been even worse if each company had not needed an Act of Parliament to allow them to build a line. Wymspen (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to both above and below: New York and other American cities are not so different in that regard: The systems in many American cities were originally built by private companies, and only rationalized and made to work together when they became public companies and consolidated into a single system. New York has 3 separate commuter rail systems (Long Island Rail Road, NJ Transit Rail Operations, and the Metro-North Railroad, which itself consolidated about a half-dozen other rail systems) which use two different central hubs (Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station), while the New York Subway as it exists today is also three separate systems (the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, Interborough Rapid Transit Company, and Independent Subway System) which have been married into one system. You'll find that in most cities around the world with extensive public rail networks, it is only systems which started after about the middle 20th century (like the Washington Metro) which were centrally planned as a single public project from the beginning. --Jayron32 12:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Our article on London station group explains why London's arrangement is somewhat unique - the railway companies weren't able to built right into the centre, or to create a cross-city network. That's why there are so many different terminals. Most other countries don't have this "flexibility" because they don't need it. For instance, Berlin Hauptbahnhof takes virtually all intercity trains - the station is shaped like a giant cross in the centre of the city, with both north-south and east-west lines. Smurrayinchester 08:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume that "busiest" in connection with Clapham Junction refers to the number of trains stopping at the station. Shinjuku station in Tokyo would be the busiest station in the world, at least in terms of passengers using the station. Gare du Nord in Paris is also referred to as the busiest in Europe, but again that would be in terms of passengers: Gare du Nord is a true terminus station, so every passenger has to get off or on a train there, whereas at Clapham Junction, a through station, many passenger would just remain on the train they're on. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what Wymspen said, List of early British railway companies gives an impression of the sheer number of railway companies who competed in building the British railway network. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Railways are a British invention. After nationalisation there was British Railways and London Transport. After de - nationalisation Transport for London began taking over routes from the railway companies. The development of the railway was the responsibility of Network Rail. With the resurgence in rail travel the stakeholders looked at ways of making it more efficient. This is why although most of the routes acquired by TfL were consolidated into London Overground TfL Rail is operated independently prior to its rebranding as the Elizabeth Line. Those commuters from Brentford didn't see why they had to de - train at Liverpool Street and look for alternative means of continuing their journey. The Elizabeth Line is a response to public demand. The commuters love the Elizabeth Line trains. Their only grouse is that there are no lavatories on them - TfL expect them to get off, use the platform facilities on the station and catch a later train.

The radial bias of the railway system means that sometimes people are forced to travel into London, cross it and then travel out again to where they want to go. When there was a direct link from Oxford to Cambridge it was quicker to do this than take the direct train. Beeching cuts meant that cross - country freight had to be diverted hundreds of miles to travel through London because there was no other route. Cross - country services have since been improved. From the very beginnings of the system railway companies have seen the benefits of cross - London railways and have built accordingly. This is why there is a railway which runs from Richmond in the south west to Willesden in the north west and Stratford in the east. With one change passengers can get to Tottenham in the north, Walthamstow in the north east and Barking in the east. A circular route has been constructed linking Clapham Junction in the south west with Dalston in the north, Whitechapel in the east and Brixton in the south. To be quite honest, without these railways, given the state of the roads, suburban travel would grind to a standstill. Of course tube (subway) services have a part to play but they are incredibly slow compared to standard rail services. 92.8.219.206 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You ask about other capital cities. In many countries different railway companies built railways to their own terminus station in the capital. They could rarely agree on using a shared station even when approaching the city from the same direction, building a line right through the city was very expensive (often had to be underground or elevated) and lines to the capital were expected to be very profitable, so many were built. This even happened in countries were construction of railways was dominated by the government, as private construction was allowed. Later on, as governments took a more active role (somewhere between 1860 and 1960), these terminus stations could be connected. Brussels built an underground north-south link, Amsterdam an elevated east-west link and Berlin both, allowing all trains to reach the same central station. Amsterdam (well, the national government) later added bypasses (passengers only) along the south and west, serving the new business district in the south and providing access to the airport, so nowadays trains to Amsterdam serve either Central station or South station (or Sloterdijk station, for local trains from the north taking the west bypass to the airport).

Why is London different? Although not too different from Paris. When the first railways were constructed, London was already a large city. There were more terminus stations than in other capitals and farther away from each other, making it harder to connect them all together via cross-city links via a new central station – I think. With Thameslink and the Elizabeth Line, Farringdon gets a similar position in the network as Berlin Hbf in Berlin, but I doubt all intercity trains will go there. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, London was the largest city in the world from 1825 to 1914 according to List of largest cities throughout history. It is still by far the largest in Western Europe, only Istanbul and Moscow are larger (List of European cities by population within city limits). Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And at the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the world's second largest city. That doesn't affect the fact that this thread was created by the banned User:Vote (X) for Change. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia wasn't that big Paris in the 18th century

"At the time of the nation’s independence the total population in the U.S. was 2.5 million. Philadelphia was the largest city with 40,000 residents".

In 1750: Amsterdam 229,000, Beijing 900,000, Berlin 90,000, Copenhagen 80,000, Istanbul 625,000, Kyoto 526,000, Naples 310,000, Osaka 400,000, Seoul 187,000 etc etc (see Historical urban community sizes). Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

August 30

Why are people "houseproud"?

What are the psychological factors behind housepride?

I am not voicing disapproval, but I simply don't empathise.--Leon (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your question seems to imply that your definition of houseproud refers to people who have an obsessive compulsive need to constantly tend to the appearance of their home. That is not what it means. That is taking the definition to an extreme and then applying it to everyone who takes time to mow their lawn once in a while. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a UK English word meaning: "attentive to, or preoccupied with, the care and appearance of one's home". Let's see, one reason could be to attract mates, akin to bower birds. In humans that could include attracting better mates for your children (if your house is a mess, some parents may not allow their kids to visit). More generally, impressing others with your wealth can improve social status and make for opportunities, such as jobs, political office, or joining clubs which lead to jobs or political offices. There may also be legal requirements, from local ordinances and homeowners associations. For example, keeping the lawn mowed may be required.

Some people also just have an innate need to be orderly. (Give small children 2 colors of marbles and some will feel the need to separate them, while others do not.) StuRat (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Some people don't really care what others think, and simply prefer to live someplace nice rather than a dump. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:DD4C:BCA6:CE45:3A6F (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Zoning laws can figure into it too. If you're in breach of zoning laws (for example, by having junk piled in your yard), you might be subject to fines. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever dropped in to see a friend unannounced, and they apologise for the state of the house? You might not think there's anything to apologise for, as it's neater and cleaner than your place; or even if it isn't, you know they weren't forewarned, so no drama. But they hate ever being seen to be less than a perfect house keeper. It's irrational, in the sense that we all cook and eat, and things get messy and dusty, and there are often times when less than perfection prevails, and most of us don't have a servant or housekeeper to do these tasks, and we lead busy lives and sometimes other things take priority, but we get around to the cleaning and tidying eventually, and in the meantime .... Nobody is immune from this, but some people like to present a perfectly clean and tidy house 24/7, because one never knows when there'll be a knock on the door. There may be a fear of judgment at base of it. -- Jack of Oz 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• OR My mother used to hang an embroidered declaration that "My House is Clean Enough to be Healthy and Messy Enough to be Happy". She threw it out during a housecleaning. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I love the irony. -- Jack of Oz 23:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Now, if only you also loved ironing, I'd send you my whites, as we used to do to China in the 1800's. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

August 31

Nuclear weapons are keeping the world at peace

I just developed the theory that the presence of nuclear weapons in several nations may have kept much of the world at peace; does anybody agree?. Since the invention of the first nuclear weapon in 1945 and used it to end World War II, none of the nuclear-armed nations went to war (except for getting involved in fighting for another nation, such as U.S. in Syria. The Cold War between U.S. and Soviet Union was closest ever to the war between these two. If one of these nuclear-armed nation go to war with one another, the result could be catastrophic. The reason for the peaceful world since the end of the Cold War was because of the measures taken to prevent such wars from happening that would use nukes. Right now, the tensions are rising between U.S. and North Korea. I read one article that they're preparing for war to preserve peace. They might not actually go to war, but threaten one another with preoccurring scenarios. For example, if North Korea nukes one of U.S. cities, the U.S. would respond by nuking Pyongyang, which is the only big city in NK. Therefore in order to preserve the nation, they would not nuke U.S. PlanetStar 06:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You have not developed this theory. It has been around since the end of World War II. See mutual assured destruction. --Viennese Waltz 06:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Also see Deterrence theory, brinksmanship, Massive retaliation, Nuclear arms race, Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, John Foster Dulles, Curtis LeMay, Robert McNamara, who were some key concepts and historical figures regarding the OPs idea. Indeed, it's as old as nuclear weapons are, and as a coherent concept has been around since the 1950s. It actually forms the basis of Dr. Strangelove, one of the best cold war satires ever filmed. Indeed, one of the best satires of any era ever filmed. --Jayron32 12:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong, Jayron. It is one of the best films ever filmed. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your undescended spiritual testicles are showing through again, Divine Ms M. Jayron's statements were completely correct. As was yours. -- Jack of Oz 22:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with that assessment. --Jayron32 16:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I too, agree that Jack's right (save for the apocryphal undescended testicles), as Jayron's claim was not false, just narrow, and not in contradiction to my opinion. Evidenceμηδείς (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also see balance of power to understand how this concept long predates nuclear weapons. The idea there is that if everyone has equal military capability, none will attack another, as that would mean years of stalemate, like WW1, where the cost to each nation is far more than any benefits from captured territory. Thucydides is one of the first to write these theories down, although they likely predate him, as well. Nuclear weapons do take this to a new level, though, as they cause massive destruction without directly capturing anything of value.

As for NK, the problem there isn't so much that they will use them, as that they will be able to threaten to use them to extort money from the rest of the world. They've already done so when they promised to stop developing nukes for money. They also randomly attack their neighbors. They kidnapped many Japanese civilians when they wanted translators, shelled SK, killed a US peacekeeper on the border with an ax, recently killed a US student who was visiting and stole a banner, etc. With the ability to nuke everyone, they would have even less reason to exercise restraint, as they would fear no retaliation. StuRat (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that the world isn't at peace, I would say your theory is flawed.--Ykraps (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Relative to the first half of the last century it is. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not just this century, we are returning to the peace levels during the Holy Roman Empire. Since the Thirty Years War through WWII, war deaths have been highly elevated with periodic, very short-term drops. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Statistically, the world is roughly more peaceful today than at any time in history: . Which is not to say that it is without war, just that on the balance there have been less war deaths since the end of world war II, and a continuous downward trend in war death. Knowing that correlation is not causation, I would not conclude anything about why, buy the statement that ..."given that the world isn't at peace" is a flawed one, because relative to the past, it is more peaceful. --Jayron32 19:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

: "at any other time in history" . Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Today is not history. Yesterday is when history starts. "Other" is redundant when the comparison is to the now. --Jayron32 01:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Today" doesn't necessarily mean literally the current 24 hours, especially in this context. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

But in that case I'm not convinced the claim is entirely true. Yes you said 'roughly' but if you're only talking about today as in literally right now, rather than in terms of very recent history you make your claim less true than it would have been. Well I mean I don't know, since we don't have estatistics, but it's easily possible today is not more peaceful today than it was on 2004. We know from the available statistics that many todays in 2007 were not more peaceful in terms of war deaths than 2004 as one example. It seems more meaningful to do as Clarityfiend did and rather than referring to literally today, use it more generally to mean very recent history so such issues to not arise Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

are we arguing the grammatical point or the statistical one? Because the answer depends on which is in dispute. I was, just here, only dealing with the former. What you're on about is a different matter entirely. --Jayron32 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the link provided to claim that we are currently at the most peaceful time in history, it is clear that we are NOT in the most peaceful time in history. Just look at the graph. The red line representing deaths is higher at the far right (now) than at many places on the graph (the past). Don't be fooled by the blue line. That is military deaths only, not total deaths. We don't have that data for the most recent years, so the red line ends before the blue line. Looking at the blue line (and considering genocides that are still happening), civilian deaths are on the rise. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think U.S. would've went to war with Soviet Union if nuclear weapons weren't invented. Knowing that the use of nukes would result in a probable global catastrophe, they would not just use it without hard thinking and making very very very accepting decision, therefore tensions would have to be really really high for such attack to take place. Over the history, they only have it, test it, and set it up for strike in order to threaten one another, but won't actually attack one another. Now the history is repeating with U.S. and North Korea. Again if nuclear weapons weren't invented, this same amount of tension between US and NK would've result in war, but because both sides got nuclear weapons, they're not fighting in war now. Actually using nuclear weapons in war was OK or even good for the world at one point in history. U.S. nuking Japan was used to end World War II, which was OK because no other nation had nukes at the time. If bombs weren't dropped on Japan, World War II would've kept on going. Having nuclear weapons was a contributor towards a more peaceful world. Nations having nuclear weapons was mainly used to protect themselves and use it to retaliate if it was attacked by one another. If those two nations were attacked (first strike then retaliate), then these two would keep nuking one another, resulting in crippling of the nation. So the only way to preserve the offending nation is not have even a first strike. Even going to war with using just conventional weapons may result in the one using nuclear weapons to attack the offending nation, so the best course of action between nations in tension is to not fight in war using weapons of any kind. That's how the presence of nuclear weapons are used to prevent wars. I heard about the agreement towards disassembling all nuclear weapons to end the risk of nuclear apocalypse, but counterintuitively following the ban, there will be more wars. PlanetStar 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Have went"? Unpossible!μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What no one has pointed out yet is the nature of our human jungle. Unlike other animals, we employ and develop technology. However, this 'current' peace is just winding up the spring. The longer it gets wound the more suddenly and violently it will release that built up tension. As is often quoted: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

A verse from Ozymandias:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away

Anchent eychipt grease and rome

There is nothing our 'elected' politicians (who don't appear to inhabit our real world) can do to avoid leading us into oblivion again by their own ignorant volition, unless 'we all' hammer some common sense into them at every opportunity. </rant> Aspro (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually related to him. My formal title is "Aussie Mandias, King of Things", but I rarely use it, preferring to go among my subjects unrecognised, spreading beneficence wherever it may be needed. -- Jack of Oz 23:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Where did you find the "Anchent eychipt grease and rome" line, Aspro? I'm sure it wasn't there when I went to school. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 1

Book pricing

Can someone explain to me the pricing difference between a 'paperback' and a 'mass market paperback' of this book? I would think that the mass market paperback would be cheaper but the regular paperback is $1.29 cheaper. Thanks, †dismas†| 01:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the difference in formats is, but I'm seeing the 'regular' paperback at $9.66, and the mass market edition at $8.86 (and both have terrible representations of The Luggage). Rojomoke (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Rojomoke, maybe I get shown a different price due to being logged into my account? Wait... I just checked again and am seeing the prices that you're seeing. Which are different than what I saw last night. †dismas†| 18:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd never heard of a "mass market paperback" before now. There's some explanation of it here (though not an answer to Dismas's question). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

AndrewWTaylor, we also have an explanation at Paperback#Mass-market. †dismas†| 18:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the prices of stuff do not make sense. For example, one would expect getting a deep discount on shoes if Kanye West had anything to do with them, but no, people are willing to pay more for them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Mass-market paperback" just means the common paperback size with pages about 4 × 7 inches (10 × 17 cm). These are usually the cheapest editions of a book. Paperbacks with larger pages similar to hardcover books are sometimes called "trade paperbacks" and usually cost more, but it's always possible that you may find cheaper remaindered copies. I have no idea what you should expect if it just says "paperback" and there are other paperback editions. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said above, I'm now seeing different prices. So, maybe there's no understanding of Amazon's pricing... †dismas†| 18:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I sell on Amazon. The last two books I sold cost the customers $37 and I got an even $16.00. The price is based on supply, demand, taxes, shipping, and Amazon's markup, $12 in this case. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

IP 69 has it right. When I was a kid, there were no fiction trade paperbacks, just the smaller "pocketbook" sized ones. In the 90's "trade paperbacks" came into style. Many books that had been sold in mass-market style were no longer printed in that size, as trade books cost more and were more "prestigious". The reason they often cost less is that there are many more copies and they are often sold on remainder (the black magic marker defacing of the edge gives this away) meaning that the publisher has been told the book is unsellable. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as an UK ex-bookseller in the 70s & 80s (and a lifelong reader/collector): not so far explicitly mentioned above is the "B-format paperback" at about 5 × 7.75 inches, intermediate in size between "A-format/mass-market" and C-format/trade (variably sized, matching their parent Hardbacks). They were around in the 70s as more literary/prestigous imprints of the mass-market publishers (for example, Pan Book's Picador imprint and Corgi's Black Swan), but around 1980 (as I recall) started to be introduced as an intermediate publishing stage between the previously two-stage sequence of hardback and mass-market, which was able to extract around £1.00 extra (initially) from more impatient paperback purchasers. Some previously mass-market titles were even cynically reprinted as more expensive B-formats, merely having more blank paper surrounding the identical typesetting.

(Re Dismas's query, I think the "paperbacks" in the ad are B-formats (or a US equivalent) and the "mass market paperbacks" are smaller A/Mass-market/Pocketbook formats – the illos look as if they've been resized for the web page.)

Shortly afterwards (1982-ish?), Hardback-sized "Trade paperback" fiction books began to appear, being merely the same printing as the Hardbacks with a paper cover rather than boards. This had long been standard in non-fiction, especially textbooks, where for example lecturers and libraries might want (and could afford) a durable edition while students wanted a cheaper alternative, but had not previously been significant in fiction publishing. For a time it was not unknown for a book to appear in four different formats (and prices) over little more than a year – Hbk & TPbk (simultaneously), followed by B-format, followed by M-m.

During the last ten years in the UK, I've noticed that Mass-market editions have been dwindling and B-formats are increasingly the norm: most of my new M-m purchases now are imports of US M-ms or their slightly smaller "Pocketbook" equivalent. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2

Right to work / live in other countries

Are there any sites that summarize the right to work / immigrate to other countries based on a person's nationality? Dragons flight (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Immigration law has a table of various countries' immigration policies. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Schengen zone (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

relative pricing of beef

I remember when flank steak was a relatively cheap cut; now (when I find it at all) it's higher than most other steaks. What happened? New uses for it? —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

WHAT!?!? Flank steak is crap. You have to pound, marinate, and chop it to even get it to the point where you can swallow it. Does it have to do with the fact that you are an elf? Please provide more details, as I was a broiler chef for years, and we wouldn't even serve flank steak to our patrons' dogs. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You can do lots of good stuff with flank steak. I just made carne asada the other day and it was delectable. Marinade 2 hour in a good citrus mojo, grill hot and fast to medium doneness, and most importantly, slice as thin as possible across the grain. --Jayron32 02:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I never claimed to be an elf. But then, I never claimed not to be an elf. Circumstances being what they are, neither admission could be of any benefit. It has to do with my recently buying a wok and wanting to try a recipe that calls for flank steak (cut into strips). —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What happened? Trends and fashions that's what happened. What the foodie crowd is in to, gourmand culture, etc.

Case in point: oxtail for oxtail soup used to be dirt cheap, almost offal for peasants and poor people. But a few New York Times articles and trend-setting opinion pieces later, the prices for oxtails were skyrocketing at Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and other high-end Bourgeoisie grocers across the USA. Even at the height of this nonense, oxtails were dirt cheap at ethnic food markets. Pro-tip: shop for trendy meats at smaller urban ethnic markets if you can, they DGAF about our NYT whitey trends.

(Anyone who may disbelieve OP's premise, check out this BS sales site, or this April 2017 listicle pumping flank steak.) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Both oxtail and flank steak are essential ingredients in making authentic (homemade) pho and, as such, have never been cheap at "ethnic markets" here in my area of California where there are a LOT of Southeast Asians. They are just as expensive as the supermarket (if not more so) and you have to get to the market early because they sell out fast.--William Thweatt 02:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh, that's honestly surprising to me, I usually see oxtail about 1/2 price at the Chinese market compared to the general grocery store. And the price at the general grocery store (if they had it) was much higher in 2015 than <2000. The place where I noticed the biggest price difference was in IL, in an area that had lots of Asian markets. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, the Carne Asada article makes my point, innit? You gotta pound, marinate, assault, carve up, and molest the cut before you can even pretend it's edible. And I ate oxtail regularly when I was living with Mexicans during the first Gulf War, so it;s not like there's a racial component. μηδείς (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree you have to do a lot to flank steak to make it tender and tasty, I'm just saying that that feature doesn't prevent it from going through swings in price due to popularity. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 3

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk