Entertainment desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

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.

March 19

1943 Major League Baseball spring training

1943 Major League Baseball season and Spring training both say that teams were required to do their spring training north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River. Were the St Louis teams required to play east of the Mississippi, since they played their games on the western side of the river? According to this page, the Cardinals decided to go to Cairo, Illinois; I can't figure out where the Browns trained that year. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this,[1] it was Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which is on the Mississippi and is about 25 miles closer to St. Louis than Cairo is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the National League list.[2] It's clear that several teams weren't "north of the Ohio" either. I think the main point was to keep them close to their home cities. The Senators trained at College Park, which was "south" of the Ohio, or at least the Mason-Dixon line, but was only about 10 miles from Griffith Stadium. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the English name of this Disney character?

What's the English name of this Disney character? He's a plainclothes police officer, like Detective Casey. However, he was invented later. This character is a bumbling police detective just like Casey, but unlike him, always dresses in a cowboy-style outfit, complete with a stetson and a bolo tie. In Finnish he is called "Reino Murske". JIP | Talk 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What film(s) is he from? - filelakeshoe (t / c) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No films, he is from the Mickey Mouse comics. JIP | Talk 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to be dressed as you describe (at least always), but this page says that "Reino Murske" is a Finnish name for a character elsewhere known as Rock Sassi. Is that the guy you mean? Deor (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise vs. USS Enterprise

As per Memory Alpha, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-E is listed as having the following dimensions:

Length - 2248 ft Beam - 820 ft Height - 290 ft Crew complement - aprox. 800

In contrast, the USS Enterprise CVN 65 (Wikipedia article) is listed with the following dimensions:

Length - 1123 ft Beam - 257 ft (at its widest) Crew Complement - approx. 5500 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-Enterprise-CVN65)

My question is: given the larger size of the Enterprise E, why is there such a smaller size crew on it as compared to the CVN 65?

99.250.103.117 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24th Century technology is probably more efficient and automated, plus a lack of fighter aircraft and the crews required to maintain and fly them. AlexiusHoratius 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need of kitchen staff either. I think the only waitress aboard the Enterprise is Guinan and a couple of assistants. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Trek version is mostly empty space (pun intended) between the saucer section and engine nacelles., etc. Meanwhile an aircraft carrier is a huge container full of people. Dismas|^(talk) 20:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Volume of livable space is the relevant measure, not linear dimensions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to replicators and droids taking care of the menial jobs that computers have long since replaced humans for, there isn't much of a need for as much crew. Thanks to this, every crewmember has a personal living quarters the size of the carrier's Captain's, if not bigger. Luxury by the 24th century would make million-dollar Prevost motorhomes look as spartan as Tata Nanos. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus one of them is made up and thus doesn't have to have any sense or reason behind any element of it?!!!! gazhiley 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Droids? Other than Data (Star Trek) and Lore, where were those critters? I don't recall even seeing a roomba. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Enterprise-E, but the Enterprise-D has a lot of cargo bays, shuttle hangars, Sickbay, Ten-Forward, several holodecks, an arboretum, and presumably huge spaces for computer storage, impulse engines, phaser banks and torpedo tubes. And that's just the saucer section, because the rest of it is mostly engines. There were more people on 1701-D, apparently, since dialogue occasionally says that there are about 1000 people on it. And as mentioned, since it's not real, they can make it look however they want, without it needing to make much logical sense... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a STNG episode where the Enterprise filled the entire universe. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As long as she thinks she is alive, she is alive." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]