Entertainment desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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.

May 19

Super Bowl LVIII

If CBS is Going to Air Super Bowl LV. Then NBC Will air Super Bowl LVI. Then in the next three years in the new NFL TV Contracts CBS will likely air Super Bowl LVIII Three years later If I'm right Because NBC can't air 2 Super Bowls in 3 Years. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've left Fox out of your post. As mentioned here List of Super Bowl broadcasters the broadcast rights rotate between those three networks. I have not read of any changes but that could always happen I suppose. MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, ABC/ESPN was in the mix. Although not included in the current rotation, a new contract could change that. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Start times for Australian Football

Next week, the nine matches played in the AFL's Round 10 will start at 13.45, 14.10, 16.35, 19.25, 19.25, 13.10, 15.20 and 15.20. Why do the matches never start on the hour, or the half-hour? xiij ~talk~ 19:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(OR) It often comes down to broadcast scheduling. Sometimes the time at the END of the match is more important than the start. e.g. For the "The News at Nine" to happen at 21h00, the game must be over. Since the average game is about 2.5 hours it must start before 18h30. Add a 5 minute fudge factor = 18h25 start time. 196.213.35.147 (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19th-century minor league baseball

I just discovered Category:Binghamton Crickets players and Category:Binghamton Cricket players. Neither team has an article. When the same name (or a very similar name) is used by two teams in the same city with non-overlapping time periods, how do we decide whether or not the second one is a revival of the first? (Note that the "Crickets" category embraces 1887, 1888, and 1900.) I trust that things were a bit informal in the 1880s and 1900s compared with today, and there wouldn't be some league office with decision-making powers on this question, comparable to what the National Football League did regarding the Cleveland Browns. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Pop Smith? The sourcing says he's the same guy.[1] But you're right, things can get kind of slippery in the 19th century, and for minor leagues especially. Note the scarcity of info on the 1877 Binghamton players.[2] I can't think of any examples now, but I know that when they were building the encyclopedias of major league ballplayers in the 1950s and 1960s, they occasionally ran across guys who were somehow listed separately but were actually the same guy - and possibly the reverse situation as well, especially for a common name such as Smith. And by the way, the 1877 Binghamton team is consistently referred to in area newspapers as the "Crickets", plural. Hard to tell where Baseball-Reference got the information that it was singular "Cricket". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't notice that one individual was in both. Instead, I came close to proposing a merger of these two categories, thinking that they were the same team, before I noticed that there was a significant time gap between the two. This led me to wonder why they're considered separate teams, given the same city and name. (And yes, singular does seem odd; aside from Stanford, a "so-and-so attribute" name, e.g. "Miami Heat", seems really recent.) I discovered them in the first place in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 13, where they were causing problems for a bot that was changing links in biographies based on whether the article mentioned the word "baseball" or the word "cricket". Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably (though not guaranteed) separate entities, and I recommend disambiguating them somehow. That should take care of the "Cricket" vs. "cricket" problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is even worse than you think. The Binghamton Crickets category says that the team played in the International Association in 1887, Central League in 1888 and New York State League in 1900. The International Association article says that the Crickets joined in 1878 (which the categories show for the singular Cricket team). The New York State League article does not list the Crickets as a member team, but shows the Binghamton Bingoes in that capacity. --Khajidha (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And an additional oddity: the Binghamton Bingoes (a team from 1900) are wikilinked to the Binghamton Triplets (which lists no history before 1923). --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triplets referring to Binghamton / Johnson City / Endicott NY. Bingoes alliterative with the city name. No clue about Crickets at this point. One problem is that team nicknames were generally unofficial in the 19th century. They were usually dreamed up by the writers, albeit sometimes with the approval of the teams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1877 team wore uniforms that said "Cricket",[3] while the papers called them "the Crickets". This might not be a mistake, it could be a reflection of the style of the day. For example, a team like Chicago would have had "Chicago" on their shirts, while the papers often would have called them "the Chicagos". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, there's a Sep 2, 1877 article in the Chicago Tribune which says Auburn has joined the League Alliance, and later they are referred to as the Auburns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a better example, on Aug 13, 1877 the Boston Globe shows the League Alliance standings as: Indianapolis, St. Pauls, Janesvilles, Milwaukees, Lowells, Minneapolis, Memphis, Stars, Athletics, Crickets, Fairbanks, Fall Rivers and Chelseas. Cities with names ending in "s" they didn't try to pluralize. (I got this info via Newspapers.com, a pay site.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the International Association of 1878 picked up the Binghamton Crickets from the defunct League Alliance. And again they're using the plural for most or all of the teams, such as the Buffalos and the Rochesters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After 1878, the next reference to Binghamton Crickets comes in 1885, in the New York State League. There was also an 1886 club, though it was not mentioned after May, so it could be the league failed. There is also not much coverage in 1887. Your original question is whether there's a connection between these various clubs other than their names. It's possible, but the coverage is too sparse to know with any certainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] I guess the core problem is definition: when we have two non-consecutive periods of time in which a team of a certain name plays in a certain place, how do we decide if the team has been revived or whether it's a separate team? The Durham Bulls appear to be treated as a revival, as the article goes back to 1902, but apparently the organization history is that of the Myrtle Beach Pelicans, who have existed continuously since 1902 and moved out of Durham when the new Bulls were created. Conversely, Category:Baseball teams in Washington, D.C. has three subcategory trees for Washington Nationals teams and four for Washington Senators, and the Twins and the Rangers are two of those trees, so one is not considered the other's continuation. What's the difference? Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not see easy to find a true connection unless local newspapers and/or historians comment on it. But teams will try to link themselves to the past. An obvious recent example, fully approved by the NFL, is assigning the Cleveland Browns' history to the expansion team, when factually it belongs to the Baltimore Ravens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the idea that players take the team records with them when they leave a city is just as much a matter of convention as the idea that a city keeps a team's records when the players move to another location. If the entire playing, coaching, and office staff of a team quit or died tomorrow, the records would remain in that city. How is that any more continuous than the Browns example? --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A ball club is a business entity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the business entities in question decided that the records would be left in Cleveland. So what's your problem? --Khajidha (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion Washington Senators of 1961 were (temporarily) assigned the history of their predecessors, who had become the Minnesota Twins. That assignment isn't factually accurate, it's just marketing hype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the business entity says that these records go here, that is a fact. A fact based on said business. What you are arguing for is actually based on who played the game, that is not the "business entity". --Khajidha (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be getting off the track, but I'll let the OP decide that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs and Khajidha, would you mind coming to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 22#Binghamton Crickets and participating? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]