Miscellaneous desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15[edit]

List of oldest companies[edit]

Hi. I AM new to this, little confused, where and how to ask question or comment. Didn't find what I was looking for - missing entry - company called Sporrong, still existing and still kicking, estd. 1666, Sweden. Field should be probably misc., You find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.62.130 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on this company in the Swedish Wikipedia: sv:Sporrong. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline for us to have an article about it in the English Wikipedia. The oldest Swedish (and probably the oldest European) company is Stora Enso (1288), so AB Sporrong's age isn't really enough to make it notable without other evidence. Tevildo (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably about List of oldest companies which doesn't have Sporrong (Stora Enso is listed as Finnish). Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did people bury pottery in the 1960s?[edit]

I live in England. I dug a hole in my garden to bury my dog and I found a load of pottery about 5 foot down. I cleaned it up and some of it was dated year of manufacture 1960. The house was build in 1930. I assume that refuse collection was a thing in 1960. So could you explain to me why someone who owned my house in 1960 or thereafter would have buried so much pottery 5 foot deep in the garden? Answer My Question, Or Else (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 July 23#Why is there so much broken pottery buried in every garden in Great Britain?. It's not clear what percentage of your pottery is dated 1960 or if it's the same type or from the same time. (If it is, then the link is perhaps not of much relevance.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possibilities:

1) Somebody came into possession of the pottery (perhaps by inheritance) that didn't care for it, and it didn't have much value, so they buried it all at once. If it's largely intact, that would support this theory, but they might also have smashed them in the process.

2) They kept an open pit there, and tossed in the pottery as it broke. It should all be broken if this is the case.

3) They buried it to hide it, say from somebody else that they didn't want to have it (like after a divorce). For whatever reason, they never retrieved it (maybe they didn't want it either, they just wanted to keep it from the other person). Could be broken or intact in this case, too. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose there's any chance you live in the London Borough of Hillingdon, is there? My grandparents bought a house there in the late 1950s and lived there until the early part of this century. My grandmother was... somewhat clumsy, and regularly broke plates, teacups, serving dishes, bowls, you name it. Then, for whatever reason, she would have them buried at the bottom of the garden. I don't remember them being five feet down, but I'm sure the ones broken in the 60s could quite easily have reached that depth by now, with a bit of garden remodelling in the meantime. Even if you're not living in my Grandparents' old house, Occam's razor suggests that 'getting rid of broken stuff' might be a reason for someone burying broken pottery in their garden. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An off-the-wall thought, but given that pottery got broken and the pieces were available, might some gardeners have then chosen to bury them in order to improve the soil drainage (as is still a common practice with plant pots, though apparently this doesn't actually work)? Originally the pieces would not have been as deep as five feet, but worm action and soil build-up over the subsequent decades would have increased their depth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.88 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this sad moment please accept our condolences on the loss of your dog. AllBestFaith (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondering if this was an attempt to dig a soak away which was abandoned. As you have gathered, digging a 5 ft deep excavation takes a lot of effort and not something someone would normally do to simply bury rubbish. As the link (above) shows, in some places one has to dig deep to get through an impervious clay layer. Otherwise one just ends up with a hole full of water. (and even I would give up after 5ft and hire an auger). Your excavation that deep must have taken a good hour, so if you did it over more than one day you will have noticed the walls looking wet (if even if dug in summer) – due to the surface water on top of the impervious clay draining down. If there was any rubble mixed with the crocks that would add weight to the possibility. If it was close to the house or some hard-standing, and if the subsoil is heavy clay, then more so. Therefore, the original excavator may have realised that he had just a water filled hole that was of not going to serve its purpose and gave up.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My garden has a cache of laser printer chassis, buried about 4-5 feet down. Yes, it's a rain gutter soakaway. The printers were all the same model, from the same office, and were stripped to recover stepper motors or anything useful, then to separate the steel and plastic to different waste streams The chassis for these was a moulded plastic open box, two side panels and a frame between them. Wrapped in geotextile they make a decent rain interceptor. Milk crates have been used for similar purposes and just behind the house the new school has a vast stack of these things under its carpark as a SUDS system. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: Many people in the UK don't realise that their water company (having been privatized) are now automatically charging their customers to take their rain water away, even though they have a soak-away. They not only charge for water delivered but water taken away – including rain water - read the small print. One has to point this out to them and ask for a rebate for all the past years (or rather demand, since the first Jobsworths one gets to speak to at the water company, try to fob you off and stone-wall you), (remember, one has the right to the return of your capital paid, plus interest). That all added together, over a few years, can often amount to a tidy sum Paying for sewerage. Therefore, check your water bill very closely for what they are charging you for!--Aspro (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Trying to find a song by The Beatles.[edit]

It was something like:

It's difficult to say everything you want to say. It's difficult to see everything you want to see.

We are/It's all one world/word? (kind of more intense, almost shouting)

I suppose the text is not right, since I'm having trouble to google the lyrics.

--Llaanngg (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All You Need Is Love? Tevildo (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Without the right words, this will be difficult :-), but some to try might be And Your Bird Can Sing, All You Need Is Love, and Good Morning Good Morning. Some of their passages are broadly similar to what you've got. I've a feeling I'm missing something obvious, though. Matt Deres (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I was conflating two songs. The first one is All you need is love, mentioned by Tevildo. The second is a different song. Llaanngg (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second one could be We Are The World, but it's not by The Beatles and rather later than their existence (1985). I can easily imagine someone mistaking it for a Beatles track, though. For a genuine Beatles suggestion - It's All Too Much? Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the second one is "Instant Karma!" by John Lennon, youtube. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Viennese Waltz, I had already lost faith that I would get an answer. Yes, that's right, thank you.Llaanngg (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]