Entertainment desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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.

August 26[edit]

Promotion in English football[edit]

English football league system discusses promotion and relegation for the top eight divisions of the pyramid, but I didn't see anything about progress from the lower divisions. Imagine that a group of coworkers in middle Sussex form an amateur club and join the bottom division of the Mid-Sussex Football League (level 24, according to the English football league system article) and do unrealistically well, winning their league year after year. After 23 years of doing this, would the club be promoted to Premier League, or is there a great gulf fixed preventing amateurs from being in the Premier League and professionals from reaching Mid-Sussex? Of course I understand that this isn't going to happen; I'm trying to understand rules, not probability. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest hurdle is financial. Each step of the pyramid has its associated fees to be a member of an eligible league which gradually increase the further up you go (for example, the Hellenic League's fees are on page 44 of their handbook) and the higher up you go; the greater are the FAs requirement that the club be operated as a business. But perhaps the biggest hurdle is that of ground development, each step of the pyramid has an associated 'Ground Grading' scheme and upgrading what was a muddy field in year 1 to meet the requirements of the Premier League in year 23 would be, to most, financially impossible. As a club progresses through the levels; it has to be the primary user of a ground, provide adequate facilities for ever growing supporters and press, pay for first aiders/stewarding/police, upgrade barriers to enclosed stands and then seated viewing, install floodlights and public address systems, provide a scoreboard etc etc etc. It is possible that they could hop around to different stadia but many league eligibility rules dissuade this (making it a requirement that a team will play in the same place for subsequent seasons) and also prevent promotion (and sometimes force relegation) of those teams that are groundsharing. Nanonic (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting case like this in French football at the moment: the Luzenac Ariège Pyrénées Club, representing a village of 511 inhabitants, has earned a promotion to the Ligue 2 thanks to excellent on-field performance, but has been refused the promotion by league authorities citing concerns about its financial ability to play at such a high level and its inadequate home grounds. The issue is still unresolved. Article in French here [1]. I imagine a similar situation in England would result in similar objections being raised. --Xuxl (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so strange, but there is also the case of En Avant de Guingamp, whose stadium holds almost 3 times as many people as the entire town of Guingamp. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cases of clubs in England successfully being promoted through the local leagues into the Championship include Fleetwood Town F.C. and AFC Wimbledon. This article provides some background into how Fleetwood have progressed so far - essentially, through heavy financial investment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, Stevenage Borough were refused permission to join the Football League's 2nd Division because its ground did not meet the criteria for membership, which had recently changed so there was some controversy around this. It is, however, as Ghmyrtle has said, quite possible for a club to be promoted up through the leagues from scratch provided they meet the criteria at every stage. Another club you may find interesting in this context is FC United of Manchester. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the mid-1970s Sports Illustrated's year in review issue mentioned a team that had progressed from Div 4 to Div 1 (No Champions League or EPL that far back of course) in three years. Unfortunately I cannot remember which team it was. Maybe someone else will remember and post it here - or if my memory is faulty they can clear that up as well. MarnetteD|Talk 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle United went from Division 4 to Division1 and back, but not in 3 years. Widneymanor (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea City. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding. This mists of time clear a bit as it was SC that was mentioned in SI. TammyMoet Many thanks. Thanks also to you Widneymanor for your post. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe also Northampton Town had a similar rise and fall in the 1960s. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wimbledon F.C. (now Milton Keynes Dons F.C.): "Wimbledon had reached the First Division, only four years after playing in the Fourth Division and nine years after being elected into The Football League." Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Essay of Asimov about Star Trek[edit]

Dear all.

Asimov wrote in 1966 a critical essay on Star Trek's scientific accuracy for the TV Guide magazine. I am looking since ages for this essay. Do you know where I might find the essay?

All the best.

Cheers.--178.195.94.230 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly hard to find. The response and back-and-forth with Gene Roddenberry is available many places, but the article itself seems invisible other than an image of the first two pages at [2]. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response and the link. The first page is better than nothing!--178.195.94.230 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot better than nothing, because it gives you the title, page number, and date. With that, all you need is to find a copy of the issue through a library somewhere that archives it. Perhaps the library where you live can help with that. (I should note that TV Guide magazine was published in a large number of regional editions, but only the listings section in the center of the magazine was different, not the articles.) --70.49.168.18 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Texas A&M University has a copy. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the articles were sometimes different as well. The Canadian edition, for example, had extra Canadian content to it; I'm not sure if that was completely supplementary or if other stuff was removed. Other regional editions may have done the same thing. Matt Deres (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented that joke about the capital of Alaska?[edit]

A friend was just telling me that Robin Williams invented the joke wherein you ask, "What is the capital of Alaska" and the other person says "Juneau" and the first person says, "I don't know, that's why I asked you?

It seems hard to believe that joke would be invented so recently - my friend says he heard Williams invented it while talking to cancer patients, but it sounds like vintage Abbott and Costello, or at least that era (it could have been used about the territory).

Is there a way to tell who invented this joke? I wasn't able to find it Googling. I can see Robin Williams being famous for it, but wasn't aware of it - however, if that's the case, it's certainly not the first time an originator of something gets left in the dust by someone who made it famous. Thanks.108.192.86.137 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the sort of joke that is so self-evidently obvious, it may not have a first writer; it was likely simultaneously "invented" many times. Given the subject of the joke, and your interest in it, you may be interested in Delaware (song). --Jayron32 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the same vein as the classic: "My wife's gone to the West Indies" - "Jamaica?" - "No, she went of her own accord", which has spawned many variants, e.g. see here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including the one by Led Zeppelin. --Jayron32 21:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line from Annie Hall: "I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, "Did you eat yet?" and one of them says, "No. Jew?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What causes content to go viral on the internet?[edit]

What causes content to go viral on the internet? I see content on YouTube that get likes very rapidly. WJetChao (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it is viewers actually liking the posted video. That accelerates as they text, tweet etc etc their friends telling them to go see the video that they like. MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things paid for on the main YouTube page get clicked a lot. Things that aren't there yet often get sent to news agencies or Reddit-style sites. Helps if they're sensational or controversial. Some pay teams of people to like/share. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See viral video and viral marketing, if you haven't. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many things have "gone viral" (lots), and how many of them are remembered for more than their 15 allotted minutes of fame (hardly any). Most people's minds have been "blown" so often by "amazing" stuff that they now resemble guacamole. So, the answer to the question "What causes content to go viral on the internet?" is: Massive world-wide addiction to flashy things of no lasting value. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No way, man! Pstew's Ice Bucket Challenge is different. It's going to last forever! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

As Dick Clark said to the committee during the payola scandal, "No amount of airplay can turn a dud into a hit." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as Bruce Cockburn once asked, "If a tree falls in the forest..." He also said some critics complained he was "stretching his metaphors too far" and he had a "two-word response" for them. My two-word response is nobody hears. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meme is another relevant article. While the concept is much older than the www, Internet_meme describes how it applies in this case. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The market ultimately decides these things. No amount of formal marketing hype will change that. Regardless of the number of "likes" something has, if it's not truly popular it won't get any more than that 15 minutes Jack mentions - and possibly much less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't have a market without marks and marketers. One has to offer before the other can appraise. If the other doesn't appraise, the one doesn't know what else to offer. They'd all just perpetually stand around, or whatever it is people without music do. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning the "formal marketing hype" is also necessary for a hit. Your friend won't share that cool new video/song/sandwich recipe with you if someone doesn't show her first. Sometimes that's her other friend, but if you trace it back, you'll get to the original sharer with the vested interest sooner or later. That sharer's the catalyst. "Mark" is an old carny phrase, from when someone would literally pick people out of a crowd and mark them with chalk, so the barker would know, when they walk by the booth, they're the type he's looking to work. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, that assumes the mark can be tricked into thinking he likes something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. At least into thinking he likes it more than he would if it wasn't hyped. Joseph Kony sucks enough on his own, but it wasn't till "Kony 2014" and the celebrity endorsements that he became a "love to hate" type, for a bit. Laying flat in a strange place while someone takes your picture was probably sort of fun for a few people once, but then planking was for everyone. Did people who "enjoyed" "Gangnam Style" listen to similar stuff, before or after? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name anything similar to "Gangnam Style", other than parodies of it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, marks are now measured in social networking potential, and the big targets are called alpha users. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's always this theory from xkcd. Double sharp (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]