Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 19

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.

November 19

Professional Paper Stapling

What is the most professional way to staple pieces of paper? Should the staple run horizontally across the page, diagonally or vertically? Acceptable (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy has given it some thought. -hydnjo talk 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically you want to anticipate what angle the reader will fold back the stapled pages along, and put the staple parallel to that fold. For me, a slight tilt off the page's vertical seems to work best -- like the 22.5° mentioned on the page cited above, or even less. I'm surprised the guy refers to the "classic 45°", though; most people I know put the staple horizontally, which is definitely inferior. --Anonymous, 05:59 UTC, November 19, 2008.

I personally think that a vertical staple looks the most professional. Darkspots (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to buy quantities of photocopiers for a large government department. The benefit of paying the extra cost of having automatic stapling devices fitted was enormous. In my experience ALL of them had the staple at the top left corner parallel with the long side of a sheet of A4. The OP asks for the most PROFESSIONAL way but maybe he meant to ask the most appealing way? If he would prefer the staple to lie across the top edge than my response above will not apply and I don't know if automatic staplers can be made to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.76.60 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That guy seems to have bought into the Golden Mean myth. -- BenRG (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a fan of Ernie I just use paper clips, see youtube Have you ever looked at a paper clip? Staples just aren't the same :) Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever touched anyone else with a tuxedo from the extended arm of an unbent coat hanger?

Let me explain. What I'm trying to ask here is if there's a scientific/ psychological organization out there that does seeminglessly pointless and or random/bizarre experiments? There would be a purpose to it. Despite my own pointless, porposeless life (see question), I've noticed some subtle things. One of those things is that -we dont really know exactly what happens until we do it! Take a pencil and drop it. But before you do, try to picture what will happen. Chances are you didnt see that funny bounce it took. Things often dont happen exactly as pictured. You may say this is pointless, but I say all knowledge is important. So what would happen if you touched someone from ten feet away with a tuxedo, and not necessarily with an extended hanger? How about that tuxedo dangling from the end of a pipe (both the plumbers kind and the kind you smoke from)? Or stapled to the end of a solidified extension cord from 20 feet away(unplugged of course)? With or without forewarning? What if it had a "Kick Me" sign on it? I doubt this has ever been tried. The point is,- we would learn something. Maybe practical, maybe not. What if you stared at a glass for 16 hours? By yourself? Or painted a box blue and asked people to guess what was in it? What if it was orange? Would there be a pattern to the guesses with different colors? How long would it take someone to ask if there's a chunk of concrete in a grocery store? Now grocery stores dont sell chunks of concrete, but if you had the patience to stand there and eavesdrop indefinitely, well...who knows?

Sorry I rambled on. Hopefully, you get the picture. I just think that there is value in ALL questions, and have more to say about this in a future post. But, for now could you please enlighten me to any experiments of this nature. It would be greatly appreciated, and I would find it endlessly fascinating.--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis. Given a finite supply of time and human labour, only a certain number of activities can be carried out. We tend to choose the ones most likely to offer some sort of valuable return on our investment of time, money, and effort.

You might be able to get some sort of grant as a conceptual artist, however. They're generally paid to waste time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An experiment usually benefits from having an hypothesis, an experimental group(s) and control group(s). More than zero degrees of freedom are useful in statistical analysis of experimental results. Some of the gambits you describe sound like vintage Social psychology experiments, like having someone stop at a redlight, then remain stationary when the light turned green, and seeing how long it was before the car immediately behind the experimenter honked, as a function of the sex/age of the drivers, the value of the car, and the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood, or having people stand at varying distances from the subject in an elevator, and recording whether they said anything or changed their position. Or having an experimenter sit outside the library crying and seeing whether people approached, or moved away. But even they went beyond "What would happen if....." Edison (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There are television programs which set up strange situations and then record people's reactions. Candid Camera is one of the older ones. Such programs could be considered as "experiments" along the lines you are suggesting. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We do experiments - mostly - not to find a specific answer to what happens to a very specific thing under very specific conditions. What we're trying to do is to find some underlying principle that covers a whole range of similar conditions. Hence (for example) we do not attempt to prove Newton's laws of motion by giving a push to every conceivable kind of object at every conceivable speed. A suitably representative sample is plenty. Once we've deduced the underlying principle - we don't need to do any of the infinite number of other possible experiments that will just produce results that will fit the same theory. Since one can only perform just so many experiments in a lifetime, it makes sense to maximise the chances of finding out something amazing and/or useful by carefully picking experiments that are likely to fall outside the range of existing theory. The experiments that you are proposing are of exceedingly low value because it is almost certain that they'll merely confirm what we already know. Obviously we're only "almost" certain - but rather than do some very obvious experiment in order to narrow that already-tiny sliver of doubt, it's much better to pick something 'big' and probe that instead. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For some similar experiments, you could try looking through the Ig Nobel Prizes Steewi (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Ig Nobel Prize. This sounds somewhat close to what I was getting at, but I dont think they take it far eneough. Laughing and thinking are two very important qualities to possess when trying to learn something, so I do give them credit for that. Same for shows such as Candid Camera and Trigger Happy TV. But, -they exist for entertainment purposes only. You can try to learn something if you're looking, but that's not thier stated purpose. Incidently, Trigger Happy TV is closer to the kind of ideas I have. But again, even that show's ideas weren't taken far eneough.I believe experiments should be done as extreme as possible. What we need here is scientific grain counters, if you will. Keep doing the mundane, boring, and cumbersome (but perplexly fascinating) and you'll eventually come up with something. For example, after Dom Jolly yelled into his giant cellphone, why not take people's blood pressure? Or see to what degree thier pupils dilated? How about asking if they had the sudden urge to go elsewhere? Not to avoid the scene, but to see if thier mind shifted into changing thier plans? "Why, I was going to go to my buddies house, but suddenly I have the urge to visit my crossdressing uncle..."

Did the weather change? Did they notice if certain colors around them seemed brighter? For that matter- did colors get brighter? There must be some sort of wavelenghth measurement you can take before and after of, let's say, the red fire hydrant sitting nearby. Did you say "spectrometer"? Why I happen to have one right here! Then check thier physiological reaction, to that!

Not all my experiments would involve people. Just most of them. People talk, have feelings, and are more fun to communicate with than the fire hydrant. In the absence of people, you could try for example, mixing toothpaste with Einsteinium. Or Lawrencium with fur? How about fur, Lawrencium, toothpaste and Einsteinium in a blender? Since Einsteium and Lawrencium are man made and break down quickly, you could replace them with Technetium and a stick of gum. Then try burning it (don't try this with hydrogen!). The results probably wouldn't be as exciting, but who knows, maybe you'd discover a cure for cancer? Doubtful, but has it ever been tried? What, exactly, would happen?--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to own a real nuclear submarine.

Yes, a real one. Ideally ex-mil, don't much care whose. I don't mind if it doesn't have torpedoes or anything like that, since I'd be renovating it anyway. The questions I have are as follows: 1) Is it legal under any circumstances for a civilian to own a nuclear submarine? I assume i'd need to have a license to own and operate a research reactor? 2) Where would I legally purchase fuel for it? 3) Where do I buy a submarine anyway? Russia have any laying around? I don't mind a u-fix-it sub. 4) I want to know how to run a nuclear sub. Anyone have any manuals for them or something?

Help me achieve my Hagbard Celine fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Civilians are not allowed to purchase military equipments like submarine, nuclear submarine is out of question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Any way to de-militarize it? Do we have standards for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Civilians are not allowed to have a private nuclear reactor either. Have you considered how much a submarine costs? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Any way the best way if you have a lot of money is to buy a company that makes submarines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've considered the cost and I have the cash. What if I formed a corporation to operate the reactor? Officially. Are there any other countries without such laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.193.46 (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is illegal for 'civilians' to own a nuclear reactor. Some of the organisations that run nuclear reactors now are neither government nor military. However you do have to be a licensed operator, which involves a huge level of certification and monitoring. And lets not forget the amount of insurance you are going to have to carry to operate a civilian nuclear sub. And probably a whole raft of other regulations you are going to have to comply with.

Just out of interest, what are you planning on using this sub for? And if your name is Blofeld we don't want to know. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say "civilians are not allowed to have....." demilitarized military equipment. Civilians own military airplanes from past wars. They own former U.S. Navy patrol boats. Civilians own tanks, which have been "demilitarized" in some fashion, as by removing the machine guns and the breach block of the cannon. A sub would probably have to have the torpedo tubes welded shut, the deck guns removes, and any ballistic missile tubes removed or welded shut. The World War 1(obviously non-nuclear) "Nautilus" was turned over to civilians for a zany attempt to reach the North Pole in 1931 [1]. Licensing of the reactor would be an issue, as would be ownership and control of the fuel. A fading superpower such as the Former Soviet Union (Russia) welcomes foreign hard currency, and might lease a sub, complete with crew, if the price were right. You could be the Skipper and travel around the world like Captain Nemo. How many million do you have? Edison (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to bookmark this website. These guys sell off surplus equipment from the British armed forces. Ships, aircraft and submarines have come up for sale in the past although there don't appear to be any on the website at the moment. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course, legality and illegalaity vary by country. I presume that most of the above assumes the US. The situation might be different if 66.158 is a wealthy,(say) Moldovan! -- SGBailey (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

who.is says he/she is from Tampa, Florida, US. 132.206.22.13 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice anyway, so it's not really relevant to us what jurisdiction s/he is in. If this is serious, the services of a good lawyer to go through all the relevant laws and regulations will probably be much cheaper than the submarine itself. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First article on Wikipedia

No, not the first one created, temporally. I saw on the main page that there is, rather quaintly, an A-Z index of Wikipedia articles. However, it only starts at 0, whereas there have to be articles that start with various symbols: ', -, =, etc. (Also, the index doesn't exactly work... if you click on, say, CZ, when it finishes that category, it goes on to Ca, and not to Da.) So what would be the first article on Wikipedia? zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The first actual article is !!! (!! is a disambiguation page, ! is a redirect). FiggyBee (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the articles are listed not in alphabetical order but in asciibetical (or possibly unicode-al) order. Hence "punctuation, digits, more punctation, upper case, more punctuation, lower case and then a few more punctuations". -- SGBailey (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the first article alphabetically is, not surprisingly, A. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Distance

What is the distance between London and Granada and London and Sofia? Does anyone also know flight length times? Simply south (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1600 and 2000km, respectively (assuming we're talking about London in England, Granada in Spain, and Sofia in Bulgaria). Flight times will (obviously) depend on the speed of the aircraft; a Boeing 737 cruises at around 800km/h. If you want to know actual schedules, check out the online booking services of some likely airlines. FiggyBee (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, a plane doesn't always fly straight or at cruising speed, so the actual trip will take longer than simple division would indicate. This tends to be more of a factor for short trips, since a higher percentage of the time is spent in departure and landing patterns, which tend to be in different directions and lower speeds than the main haul. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Checking some direct flights, I found one lasting 2:45 hours from London (STN) to Granada (GRX), and flights from London (LGW) to Sofia (SOF) lasting 5:05 - 5:15 hours. If you are willing to change planes, the upper end of flight duration is open, I guess. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The longer flight takes almost twice as long even though it's only 25% further ? I wonder why that would be the case. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't make the mistake of subtracting the arrival time from departure time did you? Such times will usually be listed in local time therefore you won't get an accurate duration if the time zones are different Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, no, but that's probably what Sluz did, and I used his times. So, if we subtract a couple hours from the longer trip to get 3:00 - 3:15 hours, and leave the shorter trip as is, then those times make sense. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the mistake of not double-checking. For the flights to Sofia, I took the durations from a site giving flight durations. The table only gave hours of departure in London, and I assumed the time zones had been included in the calculation, but was to lazy to check elsewhere. For the flight to Granada, I had one airline's departure and arrival times (always local times) and did the math myself (remembering that London and Granada are one hour apart). I now finally double-checked, and Stu is quite right. bulgariaflights gives hours of departure, arrival, and duration, and does the correct math: 3:05 - 3:15h. Thanks for pointing out the error! ---Sluzzelin talk 06:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Usa free fall

Soapboxing removed. The RefDesk is for asking questions, not posting jingoistic rants. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PayPal

I paid for something on eBay through PayPal with my credit card, and eBay says the payment went through, but my credit account doesn't say anything has been added to it. How long does it normally take for PayPal stuff to go through?--Newitems! (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The bank that your credit card is issued from may only process transactions in "batches". I know that, for example, when I make a deposit to my bank, I get a friendly warning on the ATM screen that lets me know that the transaction may take 24 hours to be processed. There may be similar lags on the credit system as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I find that if I make a purchase on my bank debit card I can see it appear on my online banking statement within a few minutes. Purchases made on my credit card (same bank, same online banking interface) sometimes take a day or more to become visible. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Would person from Seloncourt France possibly be considered Swiss?

Okay, I've gotten some great feedback here (and even helped out some with an update) with mysteries surrounding genealogical research, so I have one other one for you.

One ancestor emigrated from Seloncourt, France. The confusing part is, he's listed as being from Switzerland in the 1880 and 1900 census. And, the place name is "Salcourt." Now, if he's just giving info a cnesus taker can mishear Selconcourt as Salcourt (if he has a thicker accent), but France as Switzerland?

In your article, i found some clues - it's only a few miles from the Swiss border; very few, in fact. It wasn't even considered part of France till reabsorbed a couple decades before he came. It was Lutheran, whereas I think of most of France as Catholic. Perhaps he didn't identify himself with France, but yet on his deth certificate, it says France because they want specifics there?

Thanks, the people on here are great.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The modern boundaries of France were not fixed until the 1940's, post World War II, but our article on Seloncourt notes that it has been an integral part of France since 1793. However, the confusion may arise as there is also a Saicourt in Switzerland, so my best guess is that the "L" in Salcourt is really an "i" and he really WAS from switzerland. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The other option is that he lived in a rural area on the Swiss side of the border, but since there is no town on that side, and the only town he could identify with was "Seloncourt", but he still identified as definitely Swiss.

Or maybe he actually was born Swiss, but lived in Seloncourt. It was frequent to cross the border to live on the other side for the locals (especially since Switzerland citizen would not be considered spies, so the French wouldn't have a problem). I am also from the Swiss border, and the people crossing the border on a regular basis to live on either side is quite significant, they feel part of the same community. This was so in my youth long before Switzerland was thinking of joing the Schengen treaty. --Lgriot (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ancestor may have been 'from' both France and Switzerland - for instance, born in one and resident in the other, or even domiciled in both (at different times or at the same time). Generally speaking, in the 19th century there was less certainty in people's minds about nationality than there is now, especially in such border regions, and it's possible (indeed, likely) that this man never held a passport. He may have been able to be a Frenchman when it suited him and a Swiss at other times. Strawless (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks; this is all really fascinating! It's amazing how differently people live in some areas. (Though my great uncle may be even more amazed at how anyone can access so much information. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Laundry at home - rinsing with cold or warm water

Dear RefDeskers, I come to you yet again for guidance on life's most important matters. It had so happened recently that I have obtained through purchase a top-loaded washing machine like the one shown here. This model, just for clarity, has a larger rotating drum for your washing and rinsing, and a smaller for spinning. Water has to be supplied from the shower or a hose, and is drained via another hose (we take water from the shower and empty the waste bath also to our shower).

Anyhow, today as I was doing the laundry (yes, I am that kind of boyfriend) we had a discussion whether one should use warm or cold water for rinsing. I am for using cold water, primarily because my old wardrobe-sized commie washing machine used cold water, and the missis is for using warmer water because it doesn't hurt the hands as much.

So, the question is - which one is better to rinse laundry, warm water (call it room temperature warm) or cold water (cold like tap cold). Thanks for your input, answers from specialists will be appreciated. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 21:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Better, what, for the clothes? Because better for your energy bill is rinsing and washing everything in cold. --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wash all my laundry in cold water as it does a better job preventing bleeding, especially bright reds (yes, I throw my colors in with my whites). Useight (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) However, warm water better dissolves things than does cold water. This is both good and bad. It is good because dirt and soap will be rinsed away more effectively; it is bad because so won't dyes and other material from the clothes. Thus, using warm water makes your clothes cleaner on average, but also reduces the life of your clothes. Such is the trade-off, and the debate between which is "better" for your clothes is probably never ending... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to spend more for enzyme-based laundry soap, cold water will get your clothes as clean as traditional soap and warm water. --Carnildo (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about my bills that much - my skin and comfort are more important. We use liquid detergent that can be used both for hand washing and machine washing, and I usually separate clothes as follows: socks+undies, t-shirts, pants, hoodies+sweaters, not by colours, because most of my stuff is usually black to begin with (althouth I used to split my clothes in two groups: black and colour)). From your answers so far I am almost willing to start rinsing my clothes with warmer water. Will wait for more though, so far thanks, friends! --Ouro (blah blah) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just a comment - twin-tubs (which is what your type of washing machine is called in British English) are great, they clean much better than automatics. I didn't know one could still get them though. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They're a cheap and efficient way to do your laundry, and are readily available here. For ours we paid the equivalent of around EUR 90. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

€90? New? DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

TV adverts with mimed voices

I often see ads where a person is saying something, but it’s obviously, and I mean really obviously, not their own voice. More than that, often the voice is quite noticeably out of synch with the lip movement - not by a whole second or anything, but still enough to be noticeable. I see this most often with ads for women’s products (hair, beauty, etc). These days, with all the high-tech stuff they have, one would have thought that synchronising a person’s voice to another person’s mouth (or even their own mouth) would be a piece of cake. But no. I’ve often wondered what they hope to achieve by such shoddy production, or do they assume women wouldn’t notice, or if they do notice, they wouldn’t care? Does this happen in other countries, or is it merely a manifestion of the Australian "she'll be right, mate" attitude? I hope that doesn’t come across as a rant; I am genuinely intrigued. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is widespread in the Mother Country too. If I had asked the question it would certainly have come across as a rant! DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed in the States. At least not in the Modern Era, as it were (defined as whenever it was that they started using CGI that you couldn't tell was CGI).

I've sometimes wondered what it would be like if you could take just an everyday commercial, chosen at random, and show it to audiences from 1975. I bet they'd be blown away, want to nominate it for all sorts of awards. Granted there were a few standouts from that era ("Ski Bandini Mountain!") but for the most part this is an arena in which we've made huge progress, for whatever that's worth. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember 1975, almost everything was better than it is today. We didn't watch much ITV though, so I probably couldn't comment on the adverts. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm shocked that marketing people think we're more convinced by a badly-dubbed Australian accent than an foreign (ie, American) accent, and even more shocked that they're right - if market research didn't show a benefit to dubbing, they wouldn't do it! FiggyBee (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Cheerios commercial with a British couple, which uses the actors' voices in Canada, but is extremely badly dubbed with American voices on American channels. It's really annoying. I guess they assume Americans won't buy hoity-toity British Cheerios? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've noticed that one. I do remember that Mad Max was dubbed for American distribution (though Mel Gibson did his own dubbing) because the distributors claimed Americans couldn't understand the Australian accents. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But at the same time they use actors with noticeable accents so they stand out, such as Frederik de Groot. And Arnold Strong's voice was dubbed in Hercules in New York because of his accent.

I'd always assumed it was because they were using the same video with the audio in different languages (sometimes the dubbing clearly isn't even the same words). I hadn't realised they did it just for accents, but I guess it make sense - you want people concentrating on the product, not the accent. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some very famous films were badly dubbed, and not for obvious reasons. Sergio Leone's "man with no name" trilogy of Spagetti Westerns, for example, were shot "silent" with all dialog added in post production. In The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, for example, the three main characters are all played by Americans (Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach). However the dubbing was so bad, for Wallach in particular, that you'd swear it was another actor dubbing his lines. It wasn't; it was Wallach's own voice, but it was badly done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I gather that was common practice in Italian cinema at the time. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was practical for most films shot for the European market. It was assumed that most films would be done in multiple language versions (Italian, English, French, Spanish, German, etc.) and since none of those markets would likely dominate, it made little economic sense to film in any one particular language. In many films, the actors aren't even "speaking" the same language; they spoke their native languages (like one actor would deliver his lines in German and another in Italian, etc.), however since their lines aren't being recorded live, it made little difference. The cost of shooting "live sound" is quite high; since there were so many versions of the film being dubbed anyways, it made much more sense to just shoot silent and overdub later into all of the various languages as needed. When Leone brought the American actors like Eastwood and Van Cleef to Europe to shoot his Trilogy, they found his method of shooting silent and overdubbing later to be quite "weird" as most American films utilized live sound; and only did minor overdubbs later to correct errors. There was some tension over whether or not to use the actors themselves to do their own lines; Eastwood was particularly adamant in Fistful of Dollars, for example, that he do his own lines in the sound studio. This perplexed Leone, as given the standard methods for shooting films in Europe, it made little difference WHO spoke the lines. Eastwood was endulged however, as the films were planned for an American as well as European release, and he was a well known star in America; if it wasn't his voice it would have likely been noticed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, Tango. And yet, women's products ads in Australia are often the original US ad, with the original US voice. We have no difficulty in understanding them, because they're usually spoken in, if anything, an over-enunciated way like Leeza Gibbons does, but I do have some difficulty in understanding why an ad obviously created for the US market is used without any voice changes in other countries. The relatability angle appears to be less of an issue with women's products than with men's products. But other ads use home-grown actors and voices, but clearly sometimes the mouth and the voice are not from the same people. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not all models are spokesmodels and need dubbing, is one suggestion. Does that mean the blonde saying Jepstar with her lips, actually is? I thhought I was seeing things. Then again, body parts aren't always their own either. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always figured they use the original voice if we're supposed to know who she is, and dub it if it's just an anonymous model, Jack. FiggyBee (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with dubbing, if that's what they decide to do. It's just the lack of professionalism in the way they they do it that mystifies me. If Milli Vanilli had employed this standard, they would have been exposed on Day 1. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Milli Vanilli; it's much easier to mime to an existing soundtrack than to dub to existing vision. FiggyBee (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK it's common on a lot of adverts that are used across Europe - so the original advert may not have an English-speaker hence the different mouth shaping to the voice. I think this is done to reduce advertising costs for companies. I find it very annoying, but not as annoying as changing the name of Marathon chocolate bars to Snickers, or Jif cleaning products to Cif to appease a pan-European market!! --KizzyB (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is purely anecdotal, but some years ago I was speaking to a marketing manager for a large UK manufacturing company, specifically regarding the men's hair colouring product, Just for Men. There was a commercial running at the time which suffered from exactly this phenomenon - a clearly US advert badly re-dubbed to give the actors plummy English accents. Anyway, this marketing man claimed that this was a well used advertising technique. The advert is annoying, as already stated, and is therefore memorable. The product already appears successful in another country and when we see this badly executed re-hash of an existing advert we think: "Cheapskate advertisers couldn't be bothered to make a new ad, dang and blast 'em" - but we place the blame squarely on the ad men and tend to trust the product. Don't know what others will make of this, but it seemed to make sense at the time. This conversation was ten years ago and I still remember the name of the product. Anonymous Bob (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying they deliberately do it this way to make pernickety people like me notice them? In a perverse sort of way, that actually makes some sense. They have all the advantages of modern technology at their disposal, but they choose not to use them because seamless ads that would just wash over people with little chance of retention is the very thing they don't want. Well, obviously their dastardly plot is working. Trouble is, I'm never going to buy those products anyway. If I were in the market, I might be swayed by a more sophisticated way of making me notice them. But these bottom drawer tactics actually decrease whatever small chance I might have of buying the products. I hope you're reading this, marketers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's the difference between an ad designed to enhance desire for the product (increase the market size), and one designed to enhance product recognition (increase the market share). An annoying ad isn't going to make you want to dye your hair if you didn't want to already, but it *might* make you pick that brand out when you're standing in front of the hair dye display in the supermarket. FiggyBee (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember c.1996 watching an episode of Friends in Ireland. In the ad break, Jennifer Aniston came on advertising something (shampoo?) I found the American accent very jarring in the context, even though I'd just spent c.15 minutes listening to American accents. jnestorius^(talk) 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is bad advertising the new "good" ?

It seems that the more annoying the ad, the better it does, in the case of badly dubbed ads, ads which don't even try to sell the product ("I'm a PC !"), and the headache producing "HEAD ON !" ads. So, would an ad featuring a dog defecating on the product be the most successful yet ? StuRat (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the age of information highway, i wonder if its really important to showcase the product as somehow the viewers know it whether its on tv or as a hoarding, its aabout the strategy of conveing with a touch of mystery that evokes curiosity of the viewers to know what is it really about man.Vikram79 (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have written to companies before and said their ad was so bad, I wouldn't buy the product.I got form letter replies saying everyone else loved them.Still,I felt better for venting my spleen.hotclaws 19:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re dog doo, some come close and repel some, but it depends on their target market: 2-dogs beer here had humping dogs briefly. Not a brand that would draw moi, however. It didn't last long so maybe people like hotclaws** made their mark. There's still a lousy (weasel word, yers, I know) couple of viagra-enabled piano players ad that comes close to being the eternal return. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hell, that ad. Sometimes I see it 15 times a night, which makes me wonder what's happening to Aussie males out there. The visual concept is quite attractive. But why did they have to massacre the Habañera from Carmen by badly and very unmusically juxtaposing it with the Can-Can from Orpheus in the Underworld? Why? Why? Head-banging, death metal or Schoenberg would almost have been preferable. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? I ain't goin' there Jack, confident that the massacree speaks for itself. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some bad adverts (not necessarily dubbed), achieve cult status in the UK. The prime example is the Ferrero Rocher advert known as "the Ambassador's reception". It ran for years and was lampooned to high heaven, but people liked it because it was so awful. On reflection, it may even have been dubbed - I think the only word(s) spoken "to camera" was, from memory "mmm, delicieux" or something similar. Wonder if it's on youtube? --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another, definitely not dubbed, was a musical number for Shake 'n' Vac. Shudderingly appalling - yet a warm memory at the same time. According to our article, the singing was dubbed. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)