Entertainment desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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.

January 6

call of duty modern warfare 2 PERKS

how do i get perks like cold blooded and how do i get points can i get them in single player and use them in multiplayer? also how do i use the silencer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are much better off asking this question at a gaming forum, of which there are many. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To unlock perks you need to level up. To level up, you need to earn points in multiplayer matches. Get enough kills with a particular weapon and you'll unlock attachments, for example, the silencer. You then attach these in "Create a Class". --Rixxin (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you cant use anything from Single player mode towards Multiplayer mode... Even if you do a private match against a friend any points you earn wont count towards your multiplayer points... You've just gotta stick at it and put up with dying lots of times until you get to a high enough level to get the unlocks... Oh and as to how to use a silencer - you just click it once you've unlocked it... There's no extra button to use it it's just an attachement to your gun that silences the shot and prevents you from showing up on radars when u fire... Gazhiley (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Manimal annual

This is a longshot, but does anybody know the ISBN, author, publisher and specific page numbers for the biography of Simon MacCorkindale in the 1984 Manimal annual? I have the text, but none of the stuff for a reference. Gran² 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the woman that runs this website claims to have a copy and you can contact her through the link at the bottom of the page.91.111.92.15 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I got the text from and the email address no longer works. Gran² 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it there on Worldcat. Not much help I know. Please note, when it says, "Description based on: ISSN 0862272440", the number is actually an ISBN. Have a nice day. 213.169.169.241 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gran² 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

music video from the late 90s

hello, i'm trying to track down a music video from the 90s, 1997-1998. all i remember is that the group is some sort of boy band that was quite popular back then, at least in eastern europe and the video is basically about a bunch of people shaking their asses in some sort of basement club while they're rained (???) upon. water drops are definitely falling on their heads and they seem to like it. i also rememberssome shots with a bunch of angry rottweilers, perhaps belonging to the bouncers outside.

help! i have clear frames from this video in my head but i can't remember whose it was no matter what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.96.83.96 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the Small Things? --Jayron32 20:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live (band) did some music videos with water playing an important role... --Ouro (blah blah) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really imagine Live making a video like that. Sean Paul had a video that took place in a basement, where the roof caught fire and the sprinklers get everyone wet. (He's not a boy band, though...) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a quick answer, and it was early in the morning ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 09:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frost theme

OK, so the jingle I thought was the Touch of Frost theme [turns out not to be.] In which case, what's this theme I've been whistling? Same kind of feel, same atmospheric sax. Put in A minor, it starts out E C B A G A B A, where the first E-C is upwards and the rest of the intervals are tone/semitone. The timing is roughly: beat and a half rest, E quaver, C quaver, B quaver tied to the first of three quaver triplets with the A and G, and the ABA another three quaver triplets on the first beat of the next bar. I don't know, to me it's fairly distinctive, so I hope someone will recognise it. Rawling4851 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be Baker Street ? --Sussexonian (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one, cheers :) Rawling4851 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Rules

If possible could you tell me the answer to the following question

1. If you hit the post in a game of soccer, has the shot been classed as a shot on target or a shot off target. As you can hit the post and the ball can go in the net or it can hit the post and either go wide or over. Also it can hit the post back into the playing area and then hit a player then go back between the posts and go on goal.

I have checked through various betting websites and have looked through the rules of the game on your site and cannot find a definate answer.

Helpfull websites would be www.FIFA.com, www.UEFA.com, www.bet365.com, www.ladbrokes.co.uk, www.williamhill.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyp4 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "shot on goal" is not part of the soccer rules, unlike in some North American sports. So there is no real answer. If you see TV reporting "shots on goal" it's some guy in the commentary booth using his (or her) best guess. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition I see most often of a "shot on target" is anything that would go in had it not been blocked, whether that's by a keeper, a defender, your own player, the referee, or an inanimate object. However: a shot that hits the post is not going in. I have had way too many FIFA 09 shots bounce off the post, and I do not believe that game counts a woodworked shot as on target. As DJ Clayworth said the answer will really depend on who you ask.

It's quite interesting that there is no official definition of a "shot on target". Is it not true that before awarding an own goal the referee and linesmen must determine whether the shot was on target? As I recall (and it's been a while, so I might be recalling incorrectly), a defender gets the "honour" if the shot was determined to not be on target, but an error by the defender caused the ball to go in; if the shot was on target, the goal is credited to the last attacker to touch the ball. Xenon54 / talk / 23:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Dubious Goals Committee. Nanonic (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I've never really understood, and the article doesn't explain, is why it is important to decide this. Is it simply to maintain statistical records - which seems a fairly trivial reason to have a committee established to assess it - or is to do with the financial bonuses that players might make by having goals credited to their name? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it's mostly the former, although bonuses and stuff might come into it as well. I wouldn't say it was particularly trivial, either. I can imagine professional clubs and players being very keen to keep an exact record of who scored what goals. I don't see how this relates to the OP's question, though. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Players and statisticians the world over are very keen to know and record who scores goals. In practice, attacking players usually try to claim goals and defenders are keen not to claim own goals, and it's really only the most egregious ones that get tagged as own goals. As far as shots on target are concerned, players and clubs generally don't give a hoot. Statisticians may be interested, but in the UK at least these stats barely register - compared, for example, with the way cricket and baseball fans enjoy lingering over the detailed stats in their sports, football fans tend to be most interested only in the headline stats of goals and maybe bookings etc. It does sound reasonable to me to assume though that a shot that hits the post and doesn't rebound into the net should be recorded as one that's off-target. A miss is as good as a mile. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I personally would class it as such : If the ball hits the post and goes in then its on target; if the ball hits the post and stays out or subsequently hits another person and goes in, then that's off target... As above though, the only people that really care are statistitions or really really interested fans... Or Statos as they are known... Gazhiley (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For whom, see Statto. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In North American sports (especially baseball) the keeping of statistics is all part of the official rule. In soccer the rules are just there to determine the outcome (partly I believe because it's a 'people's' sport, where you can play anywhere with minimal equipment). It doesn't really matter of a goal is an 'own goal' or not. They are also rare enough not to be a big problem, and even when they occur it's usually clear whether it was a mistake by the defender or not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hockey, shots-on-goal are frequent, and the ratio of goals to shots-on-goal is an important measure of a goalie's effectiveness. Maybe less important in soccer stats. In the old days in baseball, fans who were extra-keen on stats were called "numbers nuts" or "figger filberts". Now they're called "SABRmetricians". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons between soccer and baseball comes down to the different natures of the games. Soccer is mostly an artistic game, there's not a lot of things to keep track of. Either the ball goes in the goal, or it doesn't. So few people score those goals that its largely trivial to keep statistics for it; goal keepers may want to keep track of goals-against-per-game or goals-per-shot or something like that, but for the vast majority of the 11 players on the field, there are very few statistics to keep track of. Many players can go a whole career and score less goals than you would need fingers to count. Yet soccer has lots of action. There's a lot going on on the field at all times, and the game requires constant attention to keep track of the ball, being a continuous action kind of game. Contrast that with baseball, which, by its leisurely pace, frequent scoring, insanely long season (162 games!) has lots of stats for fans to keep track of, and lots of ways to measure a player's value. If you want to know how good a midfielder is in soccer, you have to watch him play for a long time, get a feel for how he plays, etc. In baseball, you look at the numbers. How often does he get hits? How does he hit in certain situations? How well does he play the field at different positions? It's all in the stats. I mean, can you imagine something like Baseball scorekeeping applying to soccer? In baseball, its not uncommon for fans to keep stats during a game "just for fun." --Jayron32 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still keep a scorecard at the games, even though the complete play-by-play will be on the internet that night, and the scoreboard tells what they did in their previous at-bats. Cricket is known for keeping meticulous stats also. Keeping a scorecard at soccer or hockey would be rather silly. Keeping one at basketball would make sense though. I am not a fan of soccer. I find it boring. Obviously, many disagree. And it's fun for kids to play. What I like to say is that with soccer, there's lots of action but not much going on. With baseball, there's not a lot of action but there's always something going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do have people keeping ridiculous stats at hockey games - number of hits, ice time for each player, the amount of time each team controls the puck, blocked shots, etc etc, so we can know that so and so played 17:41 minutes of the game, won five faceoffs, and took five shots on goal, only two of which actually reached the net. I'm sure they can also find lots to keep track of even in a 0-0 soccer game. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On televised football matches in the UK, there are often graphics showing percentage of possession, number of corners conceded, number of shots on goal, so that you can see whether the winning side had it all their own way or not. But at the end of the day, it's balls in the net that counts. Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winning is the prime objective, and scoring is how you win, obviously. The purpose of stats in any sport is to try to quantify or analyze one team's or player's performance vs. another's, to try to make better decisions. As a simple example, how does this batter do against righthand vs. lefthand pitchers? Maybe it's better to bench him that day and put someone else in. Others hit well either way. Without stats, you wouldn't know that for sure, you'd be guessing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of [television program] ad breaks and their lengths

How many ad breaks do you guys have in the United States during a typical series episode ? (on prime time, if it matters) Thank you, have a nice day. 213.169.169.241 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During a typical half-hour program on the major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC), the program begins with a short "opening segment" that is a maximum of five minutes or so. This usually ends with the series theme tune, though for some programs this might come at the beginning or in the middle. Following this is a commercial break for two or three minutes. Next is the main segment of the program; this runs seven to ten minutes. Following this is another, longer ad break - three to four minutes. After this it differs between programs. Some programs will have another five-minute segment, followed by a short two-minute commercial break, followed by a short, one-or-two minute closing segment, then credits and the next show; others will have a long six-to-seven minute segment to close out the show, followed by three minutes of ads. All in all you have around 22 or 23 minutes of show and 7 or 8 minutes of ads. Obviously, this differs for cable channels, hourlong programs, and special programs such as sports. Xenon54 / talk / 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hour-long shows have a break at around the 45 minute mark that runs a LONG time, though much of that is taken up with local ads, rather than national ads. That break seems to be at least 5 minutes long. Woogee (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of calculations go into determining these ad break lengths? Obviously the story can best be interrupted at some points and not at other points. But the length of time for the ad break can probably be varied quite a bit. How is it determined when to have longer, shorter, medium sized breaks for advertising? Sorry for not starting a new section — seemed like a related question. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the length of each break for a network television program is determined at the network level and is part of the show's "format" for the season. This format doesn't change from episode to episode, although the actual timing of the program segments (and, therefore, the start times of each break) will vary. Some commercial breaks are filled at the national level by the network and these ads are seen across the country. Some breaks are filled by the station locally and some are split between the two. Local stations which are network O&Os or affiliates have a format they follow for the entire season and receive the daily timings of the local (or "station") breaks by e-mail or from a network website.

The length of each break is determined by the network and, to some extent, by the production company. Network marketing strategies have changed over the years. In the past, after one program ended with its closing credits, a local station break and station identification would air before the start of the next program. However, it is now very common in prime time to see one program's closing segment lead "seamlessly" into the next one's opening segment in order to "drag" viewers into the next hour or half-hour to maximize ratings. --Thomprod (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in a scriptwriting workshop that very often when you're watching a movie ("featuerlength") on TV, there is almost always an advert break at the end of an act. But yes there are certain parts of shows where an advert becomes suitable, or othertimes the broadcaster will cut to commercial right in the middle of a scene (when they're especially lazy). And yes, screenwriters are roughly aware of how many minutes each act should be, especially in the case of sitcomes which have a runtime of about 21 minutes, allowing 9 minutes of commercials. Rfwoolf (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With movies on TV you will usually see the frequency and duration of ad breaks increases the movie goes on. The first half hour or so can be relatively ad free, as they try to give you fewer opportunities to change channel. Near the end, especially during the climax, the ad breaks will be every ten minutes or so and much longer. By then they reckon you are hooked. Just one more reason by buy a PVR. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be unique to CITY-TV in Canada, but they often used to add an unscheduled commercial break (maybe just a couple of ads, for a minute or so) in the last five minutes of a TV show or movie. It was extremely annoying. I don't know if they still do that. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that shows run in syndication are often shortened to allow more commercials to be aired, meaning that you rmiss small portion of the original. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I take it it's three ad breaks for a half-hour programme and four for a hour-long series. Thank you very much all ! 213.169.169.241 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand they pad the hell out of movies, so a ninety minuter can last up to two hours, and so on. I have noticed over the years that ad breaks are becoming longer and more frequent. In the seventies, for a half hour comdey, there was one break in between, lasting two or so minutes. Since about the past twenty years there have been three ad breaks in a half hour programme, each lastinG at least four minutes, such that, to fit some old ones in, they cut scenes, because after all, we watch tv to see the ads. You could also get to the point where the ads become longer than the programme or movie section in between. Over the years, some have even timed the ads, and now I believe, programmes are made shorter to accommodate more. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]