Entertainment desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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.

September 9

English footballer salaries

When the salary of a footballer in England is quoted as xxx pounds a week, does that include holidays and pre-seasons, so that to calculate the yearly wages one needs only to multiply the weekly figure by 52? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought so, yes. They have contracts of employment with the clubs and no doubt they are doing training and friendly games and whatnot during the close season for which they are also paid. --Viennese Waltz 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind also that a significant part of their income from their team may comprise bonuses on top of their 'basic' wage, for the team winning games and trophies or for them scoring goals, for example, not to mention a proportion of the fees from their being transferred. In addition, well-known players can accrue further income from personal sponsorship/advertising deals. The figures published in the Press are sometimes guesswork, as the players and teams are not, so far as I'm aware, obliged to reveal publicly the true figures of wages, transfer fees etc. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago the (then) Liverpool player John Arne Riise's wage slip was leaked online (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/John-Arne-Riises-Payslip/Media-Gallery/20071041290926?lpos=Home_Article_Related_Content_Region_1&lid=GALLERY_1290926_John_Arne_Riises_Payslip). It may be of interest to you.ny156uk (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axis and Allies miniatures stat card for "M1 Abrams"

Can anyone who plays Axis and Allies Miniatures tell me what a stat card for an M1 Abrams tank would look like?
24.78.163.237 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A&A is set in World War 2; the Abrams is a much later development. As such, there is no stat card for the unit (it's not clear if you're looking for an actual or a theoretical variant unit). If you're looking to make up an Abrams to insert, though, go with "basically invulnerable". The Tiger I, one of the heaviest tanks in A&A, had from 3 to 5 inches of frontal armor; the Abrams is rated at 40 to 60 effective inches of armor. AP rounds from the Tiger penetrate 7 inches of armor at close range; the Abrams gets 30+ inches of penetration at combat range. The Abrams also mounts laser rangefinders and a ballistics computer to enhance accuracy. It has double the power/weight ratio, double the range, and double the speed of the Tiger. — Lomn 14:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into the figures, and for your healthy dose of cynicism, but I'm going to go ahead and use your figures to do the extrapolations.
If you know the special abilities well enough go ahead and add the ones you think fit. 24.78.163.237 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stat card item	Tiger I	M1 Abrams	extrapolated from
Type	Vehicle Tank	Vehicle 3rd Gen Tank
Country	GE	US
Year	1942	1980
Cost	52	~200+
Speed	3	6	"Double the speed."
Defence	7 / 6	17/17	=(60/5)x7
SRS (0-1)	7	30	=(30/7)x7
MRS (2-4)	7	30	=(30/7)x7
LRS (5-8)	6	26	=(30/7)x6
SRV (0-1)	17	73	=(30/7)x17
MRV (2-4)	15	64	=(30/7)x15
LRV (5-8)	12	51	=(30/7)x12
	Overrun	Overrun
	Extended range 10	Extended range 20	"Double the range."
	Superior Armor 2	Superior Armor 5
		Vanguard
		Hulking Mass
		High Gear 3
		Strike and fade 4
		Battlefield Awarness	"laser rangefinders and a ballistics computer"
		Experienced Recon	"
		Superior Optics	"
		Pinpointer	"
		Spotter	"
		Crack Shot 3	"
		Double shot	"
		Robust
		Flank Attack
		Overlapping Fire
		Sideskirts
		Superior Suspension
		Forest Runner
		Trench Crossing

Lomn, were the stats you gave based on the M1A2? Googlemeister (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for Tiger I - 24.78.163.237 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help naming a classical song

I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a classical song title something like "the a.... hunter". I don't recall what the 2nd word in the name was but it started with an a.

Sorry that this is quite vague. Thanks

--71.98.66.6 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cavatina" from The Deer Hunter ? ;) decltype (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what do you mean by a "classical song", do you mean a classic pop song or a piece of classical music in song form? --Viennese Waltz 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks everyone but I just deciphered what I wrote down a few days ago. It is "The Accursed Hunter" by Cesar Franck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.66.6 (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit misleading to call it a "song". It's written for an orchestra, with no vocal parts at all. I understand that 99.99% of all popular music is in the form of songs, but that is far from true with classical music. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little pedantic, isn't it? "Song" in the common vernacular means "piece of music". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. --Viennese Waltz 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A song is obviously a piece of music. A piece of music is not necessarily a song. Is Chopsticks played on a piano a "song"? Hardly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I may be mistaken

But I remember seeing a wikipedia article about an album collecting music from human history (or at least as far back as we could find it) or something to that effect. I can't, however, find it. Does it exist or am I simply mistaken? Soxwon (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be this: 1000 Years of Popular Music. Aaronite (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Moody Blues song that does it, but it is short and a bit tongue-in-cheek, since the culmination of human music is the song The Story in Your Eyes from Every Good Boy Deserves Favour (album) Aaronite (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That first one was it, thank you! Soxwon (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV ads

Why are people who have cable, dish, and digital TV paying to have ads brought into their homes? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that without those ads, your TV bill would probably be a lot higher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking "why are there still ads in a paid service?" -- see Bugs' answer (but note also that no one is going to provide a separate no-ad channel stream; for one thing, what would they do with the additional ~25% air time?). Or are you asking "if there are ads, why am I paying for it?" In that case, the TV ads generally defray the production costs of the programming and broadcast equipment, whereas the cable/satellite/etc providers must also defray the cost of their equipment. — Lomn 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or another answer: Imagine if every channel cost what HBO does. If I had to pay for 100+ channels at THAT rate, it would be prohibitively expensive. --Jayron32 04:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some free channels run no ads. See Nick Jr., which is a free station with no commercials at all. Also, the Playhouse Disney block has no commercials as well, though Disney Channel at other times does. As well, C-SPAN has no commercials. --Jayron32 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish C-SPAN did have commercials. They would make watching more interesting. Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Although all of the Disney Channel ads are for Disney itself. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jr. runs ads for Nick Jr. and Nick shows. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't paying for the channels alone, remember. You are paying the cable and satellite companies infrastructure costs and so on and so forth. Aaronite (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can. There is no commercial-free alternative source of television that their customers might turn to, so why not put in ads?

It's good business to put as many ads wherever you can so long as it doesn't drive away customers. APL (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same question could be raised about newspapers, and the answer is the same: The ads keep the cost of the newspaper down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. The cost of the newspaper is set by what the market will bear.

The ads may make the difference between being profitable at that price or going bankrupt at that price. It's not like there's some sort of weird price/advertising sliding scale. They're separate factors. Together those two factors (among many others) determine whether the newspaper turns a profit or not, but at all times they strive to maximize both of those factors. They charge as much as they think they can get away with, and they advertise as much as they think they can get away with. APL (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I've seen newspapers and channels in the UK behave as if they are looking at advertising and price together, rather than trying to maximise both without considering the impact of one on the other (which I think was what you were saying? Forgive me if I've misunderstood.) For example, Sky Movies sells itself as not showing any ads during a movie, a privilege you pay for, differentiating themselves from Film4 which does show ads during movies, and used to be a paid-for channel. Film4 is now a free-to-air channel, presumably because this significantly increases the ad revenues. The Metro newspaper (*ptooie*) is a free paper which is given out in several metropolitan areas of the UK: before it arrived in Manchester, the Manchester Evening News was a paid-for paper that ran ads. I'm reliably informed they charged and still charge a lot for ads, more than the national papers to. When the Metro arrived, the MEN tried giving out ridiculous free gifts with the paper, which were often worth more than the paper, before going free. The Sun and The Mirror got into a price war where they kept undercutting each other for minuscule gains in readers. When The Independent was in trouble, many commentators wondered if it would go free, and discussed the problem that people value a free newspaper less, so you might actually lose some of your readers, rather than gaining. This depends on the sort of paper you are, and who you are aiming at.

Sorry this is long and rambly, but I get the impression from watching UK newspapers and TV channels that the truth is more complicated than 'maximise both ad revenues and cover price'. After all, it isn't unusual for (paid for) papers to boost their circulation figures by handing out thousands of free copies in certain places. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]