Entertainment desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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.

August 8[edit]

Low culture or high culture[edit]

I understand now that classic is a term and can be misused especially for promotional purposes but would it be possible to determine which would define it. Would it be best suited with low culture or high culture or both? Reason I'm asking is because at bottom of article it's categories:culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic

Like many words in the English language, it has multiple meanings (per your linked Wictionary entry), whose use or mis-use depends upon the context. In relation to 'low culture' it may more likely be deployed loosely and with dubious encyclopaedic value, particularly in recent usages, but might nevertheless be appropriate, particularly if part of a quote by a subject authority found in a Reliable source. In 'high culture' it has (several) more precisely defined meanings, which nevertheless can be used loosely or misleadingly: for example, in music it strictly applies to a particular 70-year period in the music of Western culture, but is popularly applied to a much larger span and scope (e.g. Chinese classical music). An overarching definition is therefore not possible, and the word's appropriateness must be judged on an instance-by-instance basis: this is part of the skill-set of any competent language user.

Please remember in future to end your comments with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) in order to generate a signature and time stamp, so that we all know who is saying what when. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low culture and high culture is usually defined in terms of social class. Low culture is cultural elements (music, entertainment, etc.) that is associated or enjoyed primarily by the lower social classes, and high culture is similarly that which is associated with higher social classes. --Jayron 32 16:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music video with lots of foreign countries and probably not Vincent Price[edit]

I'm trying to remember something I saw on TV about 10-20 years ago. It started with a sort of slideshow of black and white vignettes of various small countries with country names written in a silent movie style font in the middle of the "slide", and the names were repeated by someone with a Vincent Price style voice. I think this was the beginning of a music video, maybe first 30 seconds (don't know if it was a new song or something very old), although I don't remember a damn thing about the rest of it. One of the countries was Palau and I think also Nicaragua or Honduras was mentioned. Now every time after I see the word Palau (which is fairly rarely) I can't stop thinking of the silly way the guy pronounced it. Does anyone have any clue what I'm talking about? 93.136.30.219 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is registered to Hrvatski Telekom. Was this on Croatian TV, or if not, in which country would this have been? Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it was. It could've also been German MTV or Viva on cable. I really doubt it was Croatian music, that's totally not like it. I have a vague recollection, could be wrong, of seeing it in the middle of the afternoon which I guess makes it less likely that it was a music video, but it's way too weird to be a movie. It was similar to those pompous announcements like "Behold... this weekend on channel * !", but much older looking, kinda like the 60s (and with tropical countries). 93.136.120.231 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First-class cricket[edit]

First-class cricket has a definition that contradicts itself, or at least it looks that way to me. On one hand, we have the Imperial Cricket Conference definition, which begins "A match of three or more days' duration between two sides..." On the other hand, we have the "Application" section, which notes that one of the requirements is that "it is of three or more days scheduled duration".

Imagine that a match is scheduled and will meet all criteria for first-class, including a duration of three days, but all the bowlers have a good innings and all the batsmen do horribly, and all forty wickets fall in a single day. Will the match be considered first-class because it was scheduled for three days, or will it be disqualified because the match was of one day's duration? Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to several records I can find in some google searches, such as this, it is clear that a first class match is based on the match when scheduled and not how it actually played out. There have been several such matches throughout history where a first class match is actually completed in one or two days; that doesn't invalidate it. It just means that the rules being followed are the rules of "first class cricket" which includes a maximum 3-day time limit. Similarly, Test cricket (originally unlimited, currently limited to 5 days) and One Day International and Twenty20 have their own time-limit rules. --Jayron 32 12:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...the rules of "first class cricket" which includes a maximum 3-day time limit". Did you really mean maximum, or perhaps minimum? Sheffield Shield matches in Australia are regarded as first class cricket, and go for four days, with the end of season final being five days. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's it's the minimum needed to be scheduled as a maximum. Which is to say minimally a first-class match needs to be scheduled for at least 3-days maximum. A match scheduled for 4, or 5, or 117 would qualify. The important thing is that the agreed-upon time limit for the game is 3-days long or more. Strictly speaking, as far as I know, all Test matches are also first-class matches. --Jayron 32 01:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the key word is scheduled. It then doesn't matter how many days it takes to reach a result. This match in 1851 only lastest two days, although it wasn't award first-class status until 1947. This match in England in 1899 was scheduled for three days, but was completed in two. There are some shorter matches, but these appear to be due to a team forefitting their innings and/or match, instead of one team taking all the wickets. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And how could I have forgotten the fourth Ashes Test in 2015?! Scheduled for five days, completed early on day three, and could have been over late on day 2. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went on day 3. Got a 50% refund on the ticket.... The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And occasionally a scheduled first-class match is completely rained out. Not a ball is bowled. It's still counted as an abandoned first-class match due to its having been scheduled for 3+ days. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in India, sometimes smog pollution can cause a match to be abandoned, with no play taking place. Happened twice in November 2016 (example). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, Nyttend, there hasn't been an "Imperial Cricket Conference" since 1965. They dropped the "Imperial" then and it's been called the "International Cricket Council" since 1989. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Ashes[edit]

What happened? It looks like the winner of the series is the side that wins three of five matches. Since England won matches 1, 3, and 4, why did they have to play match 5? Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Australia is far away and they only play 5 games of test every year and a half or so. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for the love of the game and eternal glory, enshrined in the pages of Wisden, when they turn sepia, a chance to earn a coveted spot on the honours board, or even be enshrined in a portrait to be placed somewhere prestigious. To exceed the deeds of 150 years of history. Or just to help your career along... even in a 'dead rubber', there is much to be played for. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that the fifth Test at the Oval, (usually) over the August Bank Holiday weekend, is the traditional finale to the season - cancelling it would be unthinkable. 86.146.194.182 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And unprofitable! Ashes tickets are like golddust - in the majority of cases, the first 4 days are sold out months in advance, and there's often a sizable number of 5th day tickets sold in advance, even though matches these days rarely go to the 5th day unless weather takes time out of the game. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I just found it confusing. I saw that a side can win by an innings and X runs, skipping their second innings if they got more runs in one than the other did in two; since you didn't "have" to play to the end of a match if a decision were certain, I figured that the same would be true of a multi-match series. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Blackwash, destroying an opposition by winning every match against them is historically notable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the Ashes are a set of five matches, and whatever happens, happens. A rough equivalent could be when a baseball team comes to town for a series. All the games are be played, regardless of how they turn out (barring weather problems, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the (ongoing) ICC Test Championship. So you could be in a five-match series where you've lost the first four games, but winning the fifth and final match could give you enough points to keep your #1 ranking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot about that. But unlike almost everything else we've talked about here, that's brand spanking new. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention no-one seems to be caring too much about it, certainly not when it comes to maintaining a half-decent over rate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could two Usain Bolts reach the Test over rate limit if they bowled 2 consecutive overs as fast as they could or would they take too long to accelerate? Top level baseball doesn't seem to care about deliveries rate enough to have a numeric limit, not being able to draw when you can't win by wasting time helps. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of the run-up is mainly irrelevant when it comes to over rates, it's usually the speed with which the field return the ball to the bowler and his slow return to his starting point for the run-up. In actuality, spin bowlers usually accelerate the overall over rate because their run-up is short, the wicket-keeper returns the ball faster and it's usually either a boundary or a dot ball so things move quicker. Once again, comparisons with baseball are somewhat wasted here, although don't tell my mate Ed Smith, the chairman of selectors for England that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is whether you're physically fit enough to return to resting heart rate and breathing after every ball ever relevant at an IPL/T20I/counties/first class type level? If you bowl well enough this might not prevent your selection but the over rate would've reduced your effectiveness. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over rate isn't down to a single individual. Fast bowlers usually have a longer run up so their over rate is slower than a spin bowler. I don't understand your second sentence at all, but feel free to keep asking questions about cricket, we can do this all year. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that, it's irrelevant now that Dweller has told me international pacemen have enough time to get their heart and breathing rate all the way down between balls. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fast bowlers at international level are very fit, so they should be fine keeping up with a fast over rate. There are many reasons for slow ones. A mix of tactics, poor attitude and just culture. The ICC has finally worked out that the teams don't care about being fined for it, and they won't take the bold step of penalising them with runs (which would sort it out in a jiffy), but have hit on the idea of docking points in the ICC Championship. The problem with that is threefold, and only one of these problems will easily resolve: 1) I don't think the teams have really got the idea in their heads yet. This might resolve with time. 2) No-one really cares about the Championship. This is unlikely to resolve with time. 3) The difference between finishing 1st and 2nd might motivate a team to keep good over rates, but any other two places? No way. This will definitely not resolve with time. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, I didn't know if they were physically fit enough that it didn't bother them so it must be something else like tactics or if they returned slow to help their ball pace. Do batsmen do the step out of the box when he almost started delivering just to undo and redo their glove velcro to try to annoy the bowler thing too? Is it usually too risky to try to make it bounce off a stationary bat then run? What do you call swinging the bat down to try to make it bounce off the ground near you with enough airtime to run? Do they ever try to do that with an edge? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batsmen will occasionally pull out of their stance, usually because of spectators moving behind the bowler (strictly forbidden in cricket grounds - see Sightscreen) or insects etc. Batsmen doing so for perceived fussy or tactical reasons can expect bowlers to react poorly - sledging, a bouncer or even beamer might follow. The umpire can also warn a batsman who is doing this, under Law 41.10, (which begins "In normal circumstances, the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his/her run-up.") and on a second offence award 5 penalty runs to the fielding side. As for your last set of questions, I don't know what you mean by the ball bouncing off a "stationary bat", but I think you might be referring to taking a "quick run" off a defensive shot where the ball drops near the batsmen, when the field is set back, and that is a common and sensible tactic. I can't make heard or tail of the last two questions, I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's asking about something comparable to Bunt (baseball)? Bunting works in baseball because the person of focus (the baserunner) is normally running away from the ball, but if you tried bunting in cricket, I suppose you'd end up with a situation like the Squeeze play (baseball). Does this ever happen in cricket? I'm not clear whether the batsman has to run once he hits the ball, or if he can just stand at the wicket if he's hit the ball really poorly. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know, the batsman is not compelled to run; he only runs if he thinks he (and the other batsman) can safely switch places and score a run (or runs). I could imagine a scenario where it might be tried, like if your team is down by a run with only one ball remaining in a limited-overs match. But otherwise, it seems to me like "bunting" to try to get a single run would be pretty desperate, as well as inefficient. The cricket experts can tell me where I've got it wrong. :) Like, for example, if "bunting" is considered unsportsmanlike. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No bunting in cricket. The batsmen are entitled to hit the ball wherever and however hard they like, and will react to each ball differently and according to the placement of the fielders (who also can pretty much field anywhere on the field except on the pitch itself, under the instruction of their captain). One shot which is sometimes deployed these days sees a batsman "change hands" i.e. bat left-handed when they were set up to bat right-handed, as the bowler delivers the ball. This is questionable under the spirit of the game, but certainly not illegal. Oh, and no, a batsman never has to run any any circumstances, even if he hits the ball. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the reference to "bunting" I thought Bugs was talking about hanging coloured flags around the cricket ground. 2A00:23C4:7997:6F00:BC9D:5A89:EEB8:D485 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nyttend brought it up. And they often use decorative bunting at special ball game occasions, or at least they did in the old days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In cricket, if I am not mistaken, a bunt in baseball is closest in technique and purpose to a defensive shot. Probably not the exact same thing, but close. --Jayron 32 18:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Luke Appling would have fit right in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's been overlooked here is that cricket is a game for gentlemen (and latterly, gentlewomen). It is not about who wins or loses (not that teams don't try to win). It is about sport, gentlemanly behaviour, fair game, playing by the rules, men in blazers and straw boaters, ladies in long white dresses and wide-brimmed hats, sipping cool drinks and eating tea and cress sandwiches served by butlers ..... but I digress. When a 5-day match is announced, people can have a legitimate expectation that 5 days cricket will be played, barring inclement weather, earthquakes, comet strikes, Armagedda, or even an early win (but winning too early would be seen as unsportsmanlike). The same applies to a 5-match Test series. No matter who wins the earlier matches, all 5 matches will be played. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]