Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 September 27
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 26 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 28 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 27[edit]
Namibian Rugby Team[edit]
I was watching a Rugby World Cup game, and I noticed that the vast majority of the Namibia team are white. Simple question: why? --Pofatyuoopol19 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Rugby union in Namibia explains that, as with neighbouring South Africa, Rugby Union is particular popular among the country's white population - so obviously that's the pool from which international players will be drawn. Compare that to the Namibia national football team - judging from player's surnames and photos on Google images, the ethnic origins of the country's association football players is much more in line with the country's demographics. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 09:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- One possible clue is that this is evidently a Rugby union team. There are two variations on the Rugby game (the other is Rugby league). For historical reasons, rugby league has always been a working class sport - where rugby union was the preferred variation in expensive private schools and amongst richer players. As a guess, I'm betting that the more well-off people who attended private schools in Namibia tend to be predominantly white - which may explain this bias in the team. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt it. You're right when you say that, historically, League has been a working class sport in the UK, whereas Union has been more middle/upper class. However, Rugby League is very much more a UK sport, and Union a sport exported from the UK to many former colonies. Hence Union is played much more widely than League: I doubt League is played much at all in Namibia (although searching for evidence of this brings up lots of Rugby Union Leagues...). And as an exported "colonial" sport, it's played much more widely by ex-colonials (i.e. white players). As was said earlier, Association Football tends to be the sport of choice of the non-colonial (i.e black) residents - partly because it has fewer requirements in terms of infrastructure. For example, you can use jumpers for goalposts.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're probably right about the lack of Rugby league in Namibia, but see Rugby league in Australia which starts with the words "Rugby league football is one of the most popular sports in Australia". Apparently it is also the national sport of Papua New Guinea. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- AU may be a bit of an exception - they have Rugby league and union, Association football, Australian rules football that are all very popular, and even some American football. I don't know of any other place that supports so many rugby-ish variants. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- We're an exceptional country, in all the ways that matter to the right people. Besides, we need something to argue to the death over at the pub. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- No doubt fighting over which game is called football. Hack (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would be the one. Me, I don't care what anyone calls anything. Mainly because the opinions of those who support any code other than the real football are not worth considering in the first place. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- No doubt fighting over which game is called football. Hack (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- We're an exceptional country, in all the ways that matter to the right people. Besides, we need something to argue to the death over at the pub. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- AU may be a bit of an exception - they have Rugby league and union, Association football, Australian rules football that are all very popular, and even some American football. I don't know of any other place that supports so many rugby-ish variants. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're probably right about the lack of Rugby league in Namibia, but see Rugby league in Australia which starts with the words "Rugby league football is one of the most popular sports in Australia". Apparently it is also the national sport of Papua New Guinea. Alansplodge (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt it. You're right when you say that, historically, League has been a working class sport in the UK, whereas Union has been more middle/upper class. However, Rugby League is very much more a UK sport, and Union a sport exported from the UK to many former colonies. Hence Union is played much more widely than League: I doubt League is played much at all in Namibia (although searching for evidence of this brings up lots of Rugby Union Leagues...). And as an exported "colonial" sport, it's played much more widely by ex-colonials (i.e. white players). As was said earlier, Association Football tends to be the sport of choice of the non-colonial (i.e black) residents - partly because it has fewer requirements in terms of infrastructure. For example, you can use jumpers for goalposts.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- As a side note, World Rugby doesn't concern itself with nationality in the same way as, say, FIFA or the International Olympic Committee. You only need to have lived three years in a country to qualify for the national team, and some of the richer teams collect players from around the world, regardless of nationality and ethnicity. Namibia doesn't seem to have any non-Namibian players (a few are marked as South African, but only because they were born during South African occupation), but Japan, for example, has quite a lot of white and Polynesian players from overseas, chiefly from New Zealand. Smurrayinchester 09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- The majority of the Japan team are Japanese citizens though. It's not clear but there may actually be more non-citizens on the Australian team than on the Japan team. Hack (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- An interesting point is that per [1] (in reference to the whole 31 player squad), Samoa actually has the highest number of players who weren't born in Samoa, although many may be Samoan citizens. Not sure what percentage, but it wouldn't be that surprising if many of them also spent a big chunk of their early life outside Samoa. Tonga is similar.
Largely because of the significant number of English born players, Wales is third. (There's a mistake in that source, Ross Moriarty appears to be correctly listed but was born in England, not Wales which makes more sense given the list is supposed to be those born outside the country they represent.) A seperate Welsh citizenship doesn't exist, so Wales will be much further down if you're looking at citizenship.
Japan has more foreign born players than Australia, and since only one of them qualifies under the parent rule, the rest qualifying under residency and Japanese nationality law#Naturalization can I believe be somewhat difficult or rare, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them except the parent rule one are citizens.
Of course, since Australian nationality law#Citizenship by birth isn't guaranteed in Australia since 1986, it's not certain Australia have fewer non citizens, particularly if we assume none of the foreign born players aren't citizens. Then again, it wouldn't be surprising if Dean Mumm, Stephen Moore (rugby union), Will Skelton, Joe Tomane are citizens. And I don't think it's really that likely that any of the Australian born players aren't citizens (noting that if they spent their childhood until age 10, they would be citizens).
Namibia BTW does have 2 players who were born and raised in South Africa according to that article, Louis van der Westhuizen (rugby union) (not Louis van der Westhuizen) born in Windhoek and Renaldo Bothma born in Alberton, Gauteng, although again, this doesn't mean either aren't Namibian citizens. These are seperate from the two born in Walvis Bay before 1994 or any born before independence in 1990.
Although NZ is another country often criticised for taking players from the (other) Pacific Islands, there are currently only 5 who weren't born in NZ, only 3 who were born in one of them. Jerome Kaino has lived in NZ since early childhood, Malakai Fekitoa and Waisake Naholo came in their teens with rugby scholarship. My impression is that this is actually often the case. Many of the Pacific Island players in NZ are actually born in NZ. Of those who aren't it isn't uncommon they spent a big chunk of their childhood here. Of the rest, many of them come here for their later schools years, perhaps on a rugby scholarship. (So while the allure of playing for the All Blacks, and the way this exacerbates the problems the small, somewhat poor Pacific Island countries face in coming up with a decent side may be understandable, it's a little simplistic to suggest it's simply a case of NZ stealing the best talent.)
Note, barring a few possible rare exceptions (children of diplomats or those born on a ship or aircraft or those who renouncedtheir NZ citizenship), anyone currently playing for NZ now who was born in NZ would be a citizen. Although New Zealand nationality law#New Zealand citizenship by birth is no longer guaranteed in wider circumstances, that has only applies since 2006. Of course you can be born in NZ and have NZ citizenship without spending more than a few weeks here. Theoretically, other those weeks at birth, I guess you could play for the All Blacks without ever having stepped on NZ soil again, although the NZRU's general expectation you play rugby in NZ make that unlikely.
However as mentioned at the beginning, this is in reference to all players named in the 31 player squad. If you look at people who are regularly part of the team, particularly in key matches, you may find differing numbers and comparisons.
Note also that these stats may also miss another thing. It's sometimes suggested countries like NZ and perhaps Australia and others accept a player in to their top level squad for a small number of matches when they are young, then never use them again. This effectively bars them from competing for any other country such as their country of birth (or that of their parents). (As with a number of sports, since I think the 90s players can compete at age level competitions and stuff for one country, and then another at the top level, but only one country at the top level [2]. And also see Grannygate.)
Some people go as far as to imply it's intentional. A more likely possibility is the player was given a chance or used temporarily as cover for an injured player, but didn't perform well enough nor in their later career to earn a more permanently place. And there was no particular desire to stop them competing for anyone else, although probably also no concern that this would do so. (Also, looking at it from the player's POV, for some players, even this brief time may be one of their career highlights. Although I suspect many would be happy if they had that, and also had other options. Albeit that is up to the IRB, and the NZRU at least has generally been supportive AFAIK of at a minimum, allowing Pacific Island players to play for their country of birth or probably parents, after playing for sides like NZ or Australia.)
Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, seems I was quite wrong about Japan. Per [3], in fact 5 of the 10 are naturalised (the other 5 were still foreign citizens as of very recently). Note also that some of the players in Japan went to either secondary school, or university in Japan. But we still don't know how Australia compares, if it's true the 4 I mentioned are citizens, then they would be equal or fewer. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- An interesting point is that per [1] (in reference to the whole 31 player squad), Samoa actually has the highest number of players who weren't born in Samoa, although many may be Samoan citizens. Not sure what percentage, but it wouldn't be that surprising if many of them also spent a big chunk of their early life outside Samoa. Tonga is similar.
- The majority of the Japan team are Japanese citizens though. It's not clear but there may actually be more non-citizens on the Australian team than on the Japan team. Hack (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
one way flight from Connecticut to Germany[edit]
Hello, I am wondering what is an average plane ticket price for a one-way trip from Connecticut to Germany. I have checked websites such as expedia.com and priceline.com.Many of the flights are around 2,000 to 2,500$. I believe an average price for a one-way flight to Germany would be about 2,000$. Does anyone know an exact figure for the average cost of a one way flight to Germany? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D65:D2F0:7835:BA74:1F32:2F6E (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it difficult to get a flight for 1,000$? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D65:D2F0:7835:BA74:1F32:2F6E (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Without knowing whereabouts in Germany you want to go, this question can't really be answered accurately. However, I've had a quick look myself, and it seems that typical prices from JFK to Frankfurt are around the $600 mark. Tevildo (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- As for your first question, it isn't possible to come up with an "average" price for this trip. The price will vary dramatically depending on fare class (first, business, coach), the date of travel, how far in advance the ticket is purchased, on which day of the week the ticket is purchased, and so on. For example, fares tend to be higher for summer travel than for travel during other seasons, and the further in advance the ticket is purchased, the less expensive it tends to be. Another odd phenomenon is that round-trip (return) tickets are often less expensive than one way, so you can often save by buying a round trip ticket and then canceling your return flight. Finally, there is only one major commercial airport in Connecticut, Bradley International Airport, and you will pay a large premium (typically hundreds of dollars more) flying out of that airport on an international itinerary over the fare you would pay departing from a New York airport such as John F. Kennedy International Airport. Likewise flights to Germany's major intercontinental airports, such as Frankfurt and Munich tend to be cheaper than flights to German regional airports requiring a connection. So it will probably be worth your while to take a bus or Connecticut limo to JFK and fly from there to Frankfurt, Munich, or possibly Düsseldorf, and then continue to your destination by Deutsche Bahn. I recommend checking fares on hipmunk.com for routes connecting New York (or Hartford) and those three German airports. For dates in January, I am seeing round trip fares below $900. Marco polo (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was wrong to to say that round-trip tickets are cheaper. I am seeing one-way tickets (JFK to Frankfurt) in January for under $400. Marco polo (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, they're not always cheaper, but they're often cheaper. Round-trip tickets, that is. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- WARNING: WP:OR, anecdata coming: This, in my personal experience, is very true. On more than one occasion, I have bought a round-trip direct flight ticket, and just threw away the return ticket because I didn't need it; for the simple reason that the round-trip ticket back-and-forth from where I was going was cheaper than the one-way ticket. One time, I needed to fly from Philadelphia to Boston; the round trip ticket from Philadephia to Boston and back again to Philly was cheaper than buying a one-way ticket from Philadelphia to Boston on the exact same airplane. This was back in the 1990s when travel agents were necessary to book plane tickets. Nowadays, with the proliferation of travel aggregation websites, the whole system puts a downward pressure on airplane tickets, and I haven't found such "quirks" to occur much anymore. But certainly, it used to be that round-trip tickets were much cheaper than one-way tickets, even for the same flight. In other words, in many cases, it was cheaper to buy the round trip ticket, and throw away the return flight, than it was to intentionally book the one way ticket. It used to be even more perverse than that as well. I distinctly remember a travel agent booking me a multi-leg flight with a layover, where I simply didn't use the second leg (that is, the layover site was actually my destination) because it was cheaper to book the trip that way than to book a direct flight on the same exact plane. So, for example, lets say I wanted to fly from Philadelphia to Cincinnati. The direct flight between the two cities was more expensive than the flight from Philadelphia to Chicago with a layover in Cincinnati, even though the first leg of that trip (the Philly--> Cinci leg) was on the exact same plane. It was cheaper to book the trip to Chicago, and burn the second ticket, than it was to book the direct trip to Cincinnati. That specific example was not the one I flew on, (I forget the specifics of my early-to-mid 1990s flight that took advantage of such weirdness) but I did used to have to do such things to save money, and the money saved by such tricks was not trivial, especially for a broke college student. Travel economics used to be so weird. It's gotten much simpler. --Jayron32 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, airline ticket pricing is notoriously quirky. I remember a couple of months ago I was booking a flight from North America (can't remember which airport; let's call it FOO) to Germany on a certain carrier who shall remain nameless (let's call them Fluthansa.) Tickets from FOO to FRA were $X on the direct flight, or $X-100 for a one-connection flight via Munich (MUC). That is, FOO-FRA was $X, FOO-MUC-FRA was $X-100. For various reasons, I actually didn't care if I ended up at FRA or MUC, so I said Okay, let's just go to Munich. That should be even cheaper. So I keyed that request into the booking engine. Up comes the FOO-MUC direct flight (which was the first leg of the $X-100 FOO-MUC-FRA itinerary, remember) and it costs...$X. But wait, now there's a one-connection option to MUC for $X-100. Sure enough, it's via Frankfurt (FOO-FRA-MUC), which includes the same FOO-FRA direct flight I priced originally.
- Doing the math, one can readily determine that the value of a commuter flight from Munich to Frankfurt (or the other way) is...negative one hundred dollars. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- WARNING: WP:OR, anecdata coming: This, in my personal experience, is very true. On more than one occasion, I have bought a round-trip direct flight ticket, and just threw away the return ticket because I didn't need it; for the simple reason that the round-trip ticket back-and-forth from where I was going was cheaper than the one-way ticket. One time, I needed to fly from Philadelphia to Boston; the round trip ticket from Philadephia to Boston and back again to Philly was cheaper than buying a one-way ticket from Philadelphia to Boston on the exact same airplane. This was back in the 1990s when travel agents were necessary to book plane tickets. Nowadays, with the proliferation of travel aggregation websites, the whole system puts a downward pressure on airplane tickets, and I haven't found such "quirks" to occur much anymore. But certainly, it used to be that round-trip tickets were much cheaper than one-way tickets, even for the same flight. In other words, in many cases, it was cheaper to buy the round trip ticket, and throw away the return flight, than it was to intentionally book the one way ticket. It used to be even more perverse than that as well. I distinctly remember a travel agent booking me a multi-leg flight with a layover, where I simply didn't use the second leg (that is, the layover site was actually my destination) because it was cheaper to book the trip that way than to book a direct flight on the same exact plane. So, for example, lets say I wanted to fly from Philadelphia to Cincinnati. The direct flight between the two cities was more expensive than the flight from Philadelphia to Chicago with a layover in Cincinnati, even though the first leg of that trip (the Philly--> Cinci leg) was on the exact same plane. It was cheaper to book the trip to Chicago, and burn the second ticket, than it was to book the direct trip to Cincinnati. That specific example was not the one I flew on, (I forget the specifics of my early-to-mid 1990s flight that took advantage of such weirdness) but I did used to have to do such things to save money, and the money saved by such tricks was not trivial, especially for a broke college student. Travel economics used to be so weird. It's gotten much simpler. --Jayron32 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, they're not always cheaper, but they're often cheaper. Round-trip tickets, that is. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was wrong to to say that round-trip tickets are cheaper. I am seeing one-way tickets (JFK to Frankfurt) in January for under $400. Marco polo (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- As for your first question, it isn't possible to come up with an "average" price for this trip. The price will vary dramatically depending on fare class (first, business, coach), the date of travel, how far in advance the ticket is purchased, on which day of the week the ticket is purchased, and so on. For example, fares tend to be higher for summer travel than for travel during other seasons, and the further in advance the ticket is purchased, the less expensive it tends to be. Another odd phenomenon is that round-trip (return) tickets are often less expensive than one way, so you can often save by buying a round trip ticket and then canceling your return flight. Finally, there is only one major commercial airport in Connecticut, Bradley International Airport, and you will pay a large premium (typically hundreds of dollars more) flying out of that airport on an international itinerary over the fare you would pay departing from a New York airport such as John F. Kennedy International Airport. Likewise flights to Germany's major intercontinental airports, such as Frankfurt and Munich tend to be cheaper than flights to German regional airports requiring a connection. So it will probably be worth your while to take a bus or Connecticut limo to JFK and fly from there to Frankfurt, Munich, or possibly Düsseldorf, and then continue to your destination by Deutsche Bahn. I recommend checking fares on hipmunk.com for routes connecting New York (or Hartford) and those three German airports. For dates in January, I am seeing round trip fares below $900. Marco polo (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming that you are a US citizen, and don't hold dual nationality, then you will need proof of onward travel to enter the Schengen area visa-free. See Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Area#Visa_exemptions and expand the Rules for the Annex II nationals box for a summary of the Visa rules. LongHairedFop (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you referring to: have sufficient funds for their stay and onward/return journey? -- ToE 12:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's also worth trying the trip either to or from a smaller regional airport. I consistently find that it's considerably cheaper to fly from Austin, Texas to London Heathrow via Dallas than it is to fly directly from Dallas to Heathrow on the exact same transatlantic flight! This makes zero logical sense - but evidently the extra premium rates for a direct flight isn't always logical. So instead of flying from (say JFK) find a regional airport that's a hundred miles from there and see if you can do better! The difference isn't small - so it's worth a try. SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)