Entertainment desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2

Public Broadcasting Station

Recently, I read the Wikipedia article of the Public Broadcasting Station and was surprised that this station is headquartered in Virginia. I have always thought that it's based in Boston, Massachusetts, because the PBSKids TV shows would sometimes advertise the street address, so children would write to the station and send ideas. Other times, the PBSKids TV shows would send children to different locations around Boston and film there. Where is the true location of the Public Broadcasting Station? Also, as a side question, I recently watched a fictionalized biographic film about Mary Ann Cotton on PBS; and I noticed that the actress who played Mary Ann was holding John Quick-Manning's hands and rocking back and forth, suggesting the motions of copulation. I have always thought that PBS TV shows are rated G for General Audience. Since when did PBS turn risqué? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens and dozens of TV stations affiliated with PBS, the Public Broadcast Service. Many programs broadcast on PBS are produced by individual stations, WGBH-TV, Boston's PBS station, is one of the largest producers of content for PBS, and produces many of their best known shows, but other stations also produce notable content, for example Bill Nye the Science Guy was produced by KCTS-TV in Seattle, Sesame Street was produced by WNET, many of Ken Burns documentaries are produced by WENH, etc. You didn't say WHICH program you were watching, and there are several PBS stations headquartered in Virginia, my guess is that it was WETA-TV, which is from Arlington, and does produce some syndicated content. The other Virginia stations can be found at List of PBS member stations#Virginia. --Jayron 32 00:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not true that all PBS stations broadcast only G rated content. For example, this site lists 314 PBS shows with a rating of TV-14. [1] CodeTalker (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch dramas much on PBS anymore, but I recall that there were brief nude scenes and generally adult content in shows such as I, Claudius and Brideshead Revisited. This was long before such a big deal was made out of it on commercial shows, notably NYPD Blue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there were scenes of genitals, sexual acts, and the like in the documentary "The Miracle of Life" from 1983. PBS, in many ways, has been far less puritanical than commercial networks. --Jayron 32 05:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As another example, British comedies generally got away with much more than the American ones. Shows like Blackadder and Monty Python said and showed material that would certainly never have made it past the puritanical American censors. Even by the mid to late 1980s, the suggestive prison scene in Head (Blackadder) would normally not have been aired - but it did on PBS (damn right I remember that; I was a teenager at the time...) Matt Deres (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how many years does it take for books, films, music and paintings to be considered classic?

how many years does it take for books, films, music and paintings to be considered classic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkins102 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to give a meaningful answer, it will depend on who is doing the considering. Googling "immediate classic" hints that it can take about 1/365 years. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, for WP-purposes something is a classic if there are reliable sources saying it´s a classic. Age need not matter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really an agreed upon definition, except in certain narrow contexts. It's often just a marketing term. Some people will tell you that a classic is a work that's long-lasting enough to span generations, but that's far from a universally useful definition. The Wikipedia article Classic is short, but the links might be helpful if you're looking for the word's use in a particular context. (Don't miss the "see also" section.) ApLundell (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the EO entry for "classic" useful.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might depend on what type of classic. For example, cinematic "cult classics" often become labelled as such immediately on release of the movie, or even before the release. (Quote: Overbroad usage of the term has resulted in controversy, as purists state it has become a meaningless descriptor applied to any film that is the slightest bit weird or unconventional; others accuse Hollywood studios of trying to artificially create cult films or use the term as a marketing tactic. Films are frequently stated to be an "instant cult classic" now, occasionally before they are released.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cars can often have the "antique" label applied to them after 25 years. Your local licensing laws may vary. But there is no similar licensing body for works of art such as books, films, etc. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This started production June 1992. So it's an antique car in 2017? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the regular vanilla soccer bet not include extra time?

To make it less hard for bettors to correctly pick A wins, B wins or draw? Why would bookies want to do that? If the game does in fact include extra time because it's an elimination game then why create a virtual artificial game that could even have a different winner from the real one? I can see why they'd want to ignore tiebreaker penalty kicks though since they're so different from "real" soccer and too random but extra time is just regular gameplay but ~33% longer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your thinking. What do you mean by 'standard soccer bet'? The result at the end of normal time? As this is usually 90 minutes plus added time (Paddy Power make this explicit[3], Ladbrokes have the same at http:// helpcentre.ladbrokes.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/252/~/90-minute-football-bets and so do Coral[4]). A standard game is only 90 minutes long, therefore it would make sense to offer bets that relate to that period. Games of 120 minutes are non-standard and are usually competition games that have gone into extra time for which seperate bets would be available (although many bookmakers will offer a straight 'x to win the game', 'x to lift the trophy', 'overall result' or 'score draw' wager). Stoppage time can be of any length (with the longest being around 23 minutes) and is determined by the referee in charge of the game, so certain bet offerings wouldn't be available and also the bookmakers usually freeze bets from the 89th minute (to stop a flurry of betting on a near certain outcome which could see them lose heavily), ready to settle them as soon as possible after the game has ended. Nanonic (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited for clarity. The headline Madrid v Juventus bet on Betfair is still explicitly 90 minutes so I had just assumed traditional bookmakers excluded stoppage time too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of my location your link [5] doesn't work for me (even fixing your accidentally lack of space, I still get redirected to the main AU site) but I strongly suspect you're mistaken and Betfair does not exclude stoppage time. Although the clock still counts up and the goal may sometimes be reported as in the xth minute, technically stoppage time is still generally considered part of the 90 minutes of game time, remembering you may have a goal scored in stoppage time of the first half and then again in the first minute of the second half. (This site www.10bet .com/help/betting-rules/football/ for example treats all goals scored in stoppage time as coming in the 45th or 90th minute for the "Total Goals Min" option, and simply excludes them completely I believe for the "Next minute markets" option.)

You linked to a bet for the 2017 UEFA Champions League Final, and this will go into extra time if needed so specifying it only means regular play time was probably considered important. See also this discussion on the same site [6] where they're clearly referring to the 90 minutes normal game time including stoppage time with only extra time and penalty shoot-outs being separate. They've never excluding stoppage time in the first 90 minutes. (Incidently, it also seems clear you can bet on options involving these.) Of course if you actually plan to place a bet anywhere you should read carefully the T&C or seek clarification if needed since you should know by now not to seek legal advice here.

P.S. This also concurs with regular usage. If someone asks "do you think there will be a result after 90 minutes?", they don't mean 90 minutes excluding stoppage time.

P.P.S. While I still haven't seen what you're linking to, the BetFair rules and regulations [7] explicitly includes the stoppage or injury time in nearly all of their options relating to 90 minutes. I only noticed 2 cases where it was not, in one case it's not needed since it's referring to the start of play, in the other case Exactacca, I think it may simply be a mistake.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not going to bet. I'm not going to go 1 or 2 thousand miles to reach a place it's allowed just to bet on something I don't have a clue about. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the link probably wasn't broken because it can't be reached from your country but because the "Betfair" glued to the link should've been cut out when I changed my mind about what the tag would say. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said in my first response, I fixed your link before I tried. Admitedly the link I included above isn't quite fixed properly as I left behind the B but I definitely removed the whole Betfair including B at least once and it still did not work. Nor does any other event link e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11]. These links all work when accessing from a US VPN. (And incidentally your link here [12] which I've finally fixed correctly for this page still redirects me to the main AU site but with the US VPN it goes to a null betting page.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess either the site or Australia blocks Australian IP addresses. Interestingly, William Hill blocks me but not Ladbrokes, Coral or Paddy Power. The Real Madrid v Juventus link worked for me before the match but now I get a null betting page (I'm USian, geolocate to America and am in America so that doesn't surprise me) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I've never visited it from an Australian IP address. There may be legal reasons why they chose to force the use of the Australian site in NZ (and I suspect Australia) but it may also be a marketing (including market segmentation) thing. Gizmodo also does the same thing which makes it very hard to actually read content on it. And I've encountered other sites which do similar nonsense. When used on a mobile browser, some sites also redirect you to the main page of their mobile site. The US is fairly different though since the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 places very strong restrictions on online gambling including on foreign run sites and the US have demonstrated many times in the past they're willing to pursue you for a lot of things, no matter if you've never lived there, aren't a citizen, and the stuff you were doing wasn't being carrier out physically in the US. While some more dodgy sites have tried to get around it, including by allowing Bitcoin, many others seem to think the risk is too high (e.g. United States v. Scheinberg) and will refuse to deal with US customers. I suspect Betfair also falls into this list, the reason they don't redirect you anywhere is because there's no where for them to do so. If you were to actually try and place a bet, they'll probably reject it. By comparison, I suspect I could bet on many of the above matches if I were to find the same event on the AU site. It seems most have the same event ID so I just have to add .au and change sport to exchange e.g. [13] [14] [15]. However the cricket one doesn't seem to work, [16] and I also can't find it on the site. I suspect the more likely thing is they simply aren't accepting bets on it yet, perhaps waiting the outcome of other games e.g. New Zealand v England and Bangladesh v Australia before accepting bets on the later New Zealand v Bangladesh game. The Real Madrid vs Juventus link also doesn't work when adapted [17], I suspect this may simply be a different way of handling finished events. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]