Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of entertainment.

Welcome to the entertainment reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

January 23[edit]

Super Bowl question about DeflateGate[edit]

In the 2015 Super Bowl, it has been alleged that the Patriots deflated or under-inflated the footballs. What does this do, exactly? In other words, what are the results if a football has been deflated? And how does the deflation of footballs give one team an (unfair) advantage over the other? I have no idea. Full disclosure: I know absolutely nothing about football. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is claimed that an underinflated ball can be easier to grasp, giving the quarterback somewhat of a competitive advantage. Each team supplies 12 of their own footballs for game play while on offense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. When you grab it your fingers will sink in deeper, to get a better grip. This would be especially important for players with smaller hands. Does the Patriots QB have smaller hands than the average QB ? StuRat (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way it was not in the Super Bowl, it was in the NFC Conference championship game. I don't think it has to do with the size of the QB's hands, it's just a matter of personal preference. An underinflated ball is also easier to catch, especially in cold conditions. --Xuxl (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Are there weather conditions in which the ball would naturally change condition or inflation? Hack (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Fifteen degrees below zero should do it. I don't think any modern NFL game has been played in those conditions, though per a polar vortex newspaper (Minnesota has a dome, maybe they shouldn't, it would give them a great home field advantage). I'm sure they warm the balls up before measuring them, though, it'd be kind if silly for a ball to get illegal when the temperature changes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The Vikings are currently an outdoors team until the Metrodome's replacement is completed. At this point, the probability of them playing football in January seems rather slim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
15 below describes the conditions during the 1967 NFL Championship Game. There has been endless commentary about that game, but I don't recall anything being said about the balls deflating from the cold... and if they did, both teams would have had that same "advantage". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
They wouldn't deflate but they would depressurize. The leather must've been less flexible, making this less helpful and noticeable. And it would be barely below the legal pressure if it was left in the shade to chill, and probably warm up enough during use to become legal pressure. So, not very noticeable. Anyway, that was before the Super Bowl-era (by days), so not modern, at least if you wanted to sensationalize the then-current polar vortex (didn't even reach our 2004 low of +1°F..). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That game was the lead-in to the first Super Bowl, so it was definitely in the Super Bowl era. And it defends how you define "modern". It's not difficult to argue that the "modern" NFL began with the first championship game in 1933. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh? They measure the balls before each game? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The officials check the status of all game balls at some point prior to the game. The teams retain their respective sets of 12, while the officials retain the ones used for kickoffs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what's the allegation here? That the officials checked the balls; they checked out just fine; after they checked them, the officials handed the balls over to the Patriots; and it was at this point that the Patriots manipulated the balls? Is that the scenario of the allegations? In other words, the manipulation occurred after the "official" check, but prior to start of game play? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be the gist of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. And doesn't that make no sense whatsoever? And clearly defeats the whole point of some neutral third-party official making sure that the balls are OK and that everything is on the up and up? I mean, if a team wanted to manipulate the balls, they clearly would not do so before the officials gave their inspection and their OK. They would clearly do it after the inspection and the "official OK" (as is alleged here). So, if the point is to make sure (through some neutral third-party) that the balls have not manipulated, how does this system achieve that? This method defeats the whole purpose of the inspection in the first place. Am I missing something? The NFL officials couldn't figure this out? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Teams have been messing with balls for years, if you follow the stories, they have recently brought back a story that ran several years ago where Aaron Rodgers had candidly admitted to tampering with the balls. It's one of those things that everyone does and no one talks about. This story is really more about the fact that Belichick has the personality of a cold, wet blanket and that the Patriots win a whole shitload of games. This sort of "cheating" is admittedly rampant and unenforced, at least until coach with an unlikable media personality gets accused of it, and then it's a capital offense. --Jayron32 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense and is likely true (in the "real world"). But, in theory ("on paper") how is this inspection process useful? How is it supposed to work? At least on paper, the NFL states that they don't want the balls manipulated (I assume.). That being the case, how do they advance or defend a policy that defeats itself (i.e., giving the ball back to potentially be manipulated after it has been inspected and deemed to be not manipulated and, furthermore, giving it back to the very people who are being policed and from whom the manipulation is feared)? The whole thing seems ridiculous, and I am actually laughing as I type this. I am just not sure if the whole thing is just "window dressing" and a "sham", or I am sort of missing something? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Rules are often reactionary rather than proactive. It's reasonable to suppose that this will lead to some sort of procedural change, for example the officials keeping each team's 12 just as they already do with the kickoff balls. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That's because people in charge are usually idiots. What kind of retard thought that putting a parking garage under a World Trade Center tower and letting anyone park there was a good idea? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The same "retards" who put parking garages under numerous other high-rise buildings. Stay on-topic, please. -- (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

National anthems at events, if said national anthems have the same melody[edit]

What would happen if, at events between two countries where two anthems have to be played, notably in sporting events, the two countries have national anthems which share a melody? For example, theoretically, what would happen if countries like Finland faced Estonia, Tanzania faced Zambia, the United Kingdom faced Liechtenstein, or perhaps the most extreme example, Greece and Cyprus, which have the same national anthem, faced each other? In these cases, would the melody have to be played twice, once for each nation, or will playing it once suffice? I know of one precedent though: whenever England faces Northern Ireland, if England uses God Save the Queen at said event, the anthem will only be played once since GSTQ is also Northern Ireland's anthem. But what about the aforementioned cases? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it usually gets played twice. Our article on "God Save the Queen" writes: "The same tune was therefore played twice before the Euro 96 qualifying match between Northern Ireland and Liechtenstein; likewise when England played Liechtenstein in a Euro 2004 qualifier." ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I watched the opening of an England-Liechtenstein football match a while back. Both God Save the Queen and Oben am jungen Rhein were played and sung. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This might have been a more common occurrence had the Germans kept their previous national anthem, abandoned in 1922, Heil dir im Siegerkranz which also used the God Save the Queen tune. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

video zoom in filmmaking[edit]

You are making a professional movie (i.e. it will be shown on full sized theater screens) with professional high resolution video equipment. You take a certain live action shot that can't be repeated. During editing you realize you want to zoom in on a certain part of the frame.

  1. Is that a normal thing to do with editing software, to get an effect that looks like you zoomed with the camera instead of afterwards? That is I don't just mean crop the frame for the whole scene. It's supposed to look like you started with a wider shot, then zoomed or brought the camera closer during the shot.
  2. Is the loss of resolution likely to be noticable to viewers during projection, if the scene is just a few seconds long? The zooming isn't to show fine detail, but rather to just emphasize the part of the scene being zoomed on. Let's say the zoom factor is moderate, like 1.5x or 2x, but not extreme.

Thanks. (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be their first choice (optical zoom would be), but I suppose it's a lot quicker than re-shooting a scene. So, if they are nearing their budget limit, they might be tempted to take shortcuts like that. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Re-shooting the scene was absolutely impossible in the situation in question (one-of-a-kind footage, not a budget issue). My question is whether simulating zoooming during editing is a known technique supported by existing software. Thanks. (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is yes, and to the second, no. --Thomprod (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It might be interesting to the OP that (slowly) zooming into a still image, usually with some panning, is well known in documentaries; there is even a name for that kind of shot. Unfortunately, the name (I think it's "(FirstName)(LastName) shot", something that's not exactly searchable) has escaped me and my browser history. (It's even a trope on TV Tropes.) - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 07:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ken Burns and Ric Burns are known for that, along with panning across still pics while sad violin music plays. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Good catch! "Shot" was not even in the page title. Damn. TVT Link - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

Happiness is...[edit]

I listen to older stuff in general, so I don't know much about popular music. Beginning several months ago, I've occasionally heard a song in public places (e.g. fast food restaurants) that repeats a line, seemingly "Happiness is [rest] the way you feel". It's a male singer with an American accent. Can anyone guess what the song is, and/or the correct lyrics? Google provides six results for "happiness is the way you feel"; presumably I'd get lots more hits for something that's been popular now for several months. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy by Pharrell Williams. Here's a clip. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
And here's the best video of the same song is called Happy British Muslims. Watch it and your day will be infinitely better. On a side-note, if you get these burning questions in the future, but don't want to use RefDesk, the try getting Soundhound on your phone or tablet. It's remarkably accurate (as in it will be spot on with the exact rendition of the song). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 6 Shevat 5775 07:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Google "room without a roof" and you'll probably get plenty of hits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
And if you like older stuff, here's one from the 60s,[1] and one of the TV commercials it spawned.[2]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Another question about DeflateGate[edit]

Here is another question about DeflateGate. There has been some theory (and, perhaps, even a defense by the Patriots) that the weather somehow caused the footballs to deflate. (I believe that's what I have been reading in the news.) How would that explain that the footballs of only one team deflated, while the footballs of the other did not? Has that issue been raised? Is there any plausible (innocent) explanation that would allow one set of footballs to deflate, yet not the other set? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, unless the Colts' footballs were also deflated and no one caught it. One recent report said that the game balls in the second half were monitored by the officials. The second half is when the Patriots got the majority of their scoring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologists have suggested that the Colts inflated their balls at the top of the allowed range and the Patriots at the bottom. Hence, when they were taken into the cold outdoors, the Colts' balls stayed within the range and the Patriots' fell below it. However, this newspaper article writer consulted a physics professor, who didn't find it at all plausible. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Contestants appearing on a game show[edit]

[This was moved from Misc desk ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)]

I believe I have read that they often tape several episodes of game shows on the same day, back to back (which will later broadcast on different days to the TV public). As such, the game-show host will change his clothes several times, so that each taping (of each new episode) appears like it was filmed on a different date altogether. My question concerns the clothing of the contestants. First, do contestants wear their own clothes on the show? (I can't imagine that the TV show buys each contestant a new wardrobe.) Second, do the contestants also change clothes in between same-day episode filming, in the same way that the host does? Third – and most importantly, to me – does anyone know if the show gives the contestants any set of "rules" about their apparel? A list of things that they are allowed (or not allowed) to wear? I am curious if anyone knows anything about this topic. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I appeared on University Challenge. We were told not to wear clothes that were too "busy" - that is, would be a distraction for the viewers (I can't remember the exact phrasing), not to wear white, and to take a plain jersey in case something had to be covered up. We were also told not to wear anything that could be construed as advertising, or as supporting a product or political or social cause. Multiple episodes were filmed, but they shuffled the audience around a bit so that supporters from the unis currently being recorded are at the front; I suppose this is so they can get louder cheers. RomanSpa (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting. So, did they tell you to bring several days of clothing? Or did you wear the same outfit in all of the different episodes (taped on the same day)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Same outfit, though because of the way the contest works you get breaks between the first round and later rounds. I just kept things simple, though I think someone put a jersey on (the studio is much colder than you think it's going to be if you're in the first recording of the day). It's not really the sort of show where people pay much attention to clothing. RomanSpa (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I was on Eggheads, and we were told to wear a shirt of a single colour if possible as patterns like checks and stripes can cause moiré effects on screen - that's what causes the distraction, not the patterns themselves. Our team were only going to be on one episode, but they asked us to bring two or three shirts each so we didn't all end up wearing the same colour. There were several episodes shot on the same day, and they sat us in the studio for quite some time, explaining the rules and making sure we all knew where the cameras were, which one to look at when, where to go for the solo rounds, where the cables were so we didn't trip over them and so on, before the regular "eggheads" and the host showed up, so they would have had plenty of time to change. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
On The Price is Right, where the audience is full of potential contestants, nobody is allowed to wear advertising or costumes. They also ban you from the building if you have game show experience and don't offer parking. You will be "processed" in a "holding area". It's a very challenging career path. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
And you can apparently bring a chest, so long as it's not an ice chest. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Here, they stress "ABSOLUTELY NO OPEN-TOED SHOES, NO HIGH HEELS, NO PLATFORMS, AND NO SANDALS OR FLIP FLOPS OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED INSIDE THE STUDIO." I guess CBS has been sued by a viral video star or two. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:59, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Ken Jennings in his book Brainiac: Adventures in the Curious, Competitive, Compulsive World of Trivia Buffs talks about his first day arriving to play Jeopardy!:

As the guard at the gate checks IDs, I open the passenger-side back door to pull out the two spare changes of clothes that Jeopardy! asks you to bring.
The clothes aren't there.
As we file into the greenroom, I am conspicuously the only contestant not finding a place to hang a bulky garment bag.

Fortunately his wife is with him and she manages to retrieve the clothes from where he'd left them. Anyway, he goes on to address the point explicitly:

If you win your game, you have no time to revel in your victory, call your mom, or do a Terrell Owens end zone dance. You and Alex are rushed backstage to change outfits—in separate dressing rooms, mind you—and as soon as your skirt is zipped or your tie is tied, you're yanked back on set to start all over again. Alex's clever introductory repartee pretends to the home audience that twenty-four hours have passed. ("On yesterday's show, folks—and it must have been yesterday, mind you, not ten minutes ago, because you'll notice that I'm wearing a blue tie now, and yesterday, as these photos reveal, I had a maroon one on...") Five separate shows back-to-back makes for an exhausting day.

-- (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The World Wrestling Federation used to regularly tape a month's worth of squash matches in one or two long days. To compensate for the human inability to care that long, they often inserted crowd noise and reaction shots to the later end, post-production. If you don't look at them, these people seem pumped! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
Here is the handout I was given:
Jeopardy! Wardrobe Information
Answer: Less than 10 minutes
Question: What is "How long does the returning champ have to change clothes between shows"?
That's right folks. About 10 minutes. That's how we manage to tape five shows in one day. Alex does it, and you can too. The key is to PLAN AHEAD. Because believe me, if you are a returning champ the last thing you want to be thinking about is what to wear on the next show.
Arrive at the studio in the outfit you would like to wear on your first show. Bring with you a total of two outfits for a total of 3 outfits. (After all, if you win three shows NOBODY is going to remember what you wore on the first night anyway.) The rule of thumb when selecting your wardrobe is to wear what you would wear on an important job interview. Naturally we want you to be comfortable, but we also want to see you looking your best.
This applies to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. No jeans. No sneakers. No solid white or pale colors. Also, avoid any fine prints or very busy patterns or plaids as they do not play well on the video camera. A light dress shirt or blouse is okay, but ONLY if it is worn under a dark jacket or sweater.
Dress shirt with a sport coat or sweater, suit and and tie. These are the kind of upscale looks we're going for. Remember: you are standing behind the podium most of the time, so as long as you wear a nice pair of slacks and shoes you can really make it easy on yourself by just changing your shirt, adding a sweater, or putting on a new coat and tie. (Incidentally, a dark-colored long-sleeved shirt and a tie is okay, but we'd prefer that you dress it up a bit with a sweater, coat, or vest.)
Best colors are the basics: Red, Royal Blue, etc. For your own personal comfort (and to facilitate the process of attaching a microphone to your garments), you may want to avoid one-piece outfits. We also suggest that you leave long necklaces at home. Skirt and blouse, blazer with skirt or slacks, pantsuits, any of these looks are fine. But remember; stay away from from any pieces that are predominantly white or very pale. When you arrive at the studio, please make sure that your hair and make-up are completely done. We also suggest that you choose a bright-colored lipstick.
Lastly, you should know that it can be very cool in the studio during tape days (whether it is warm outside or not), so it might be a good idea to bring along a light sweater or jacket to be comfortable while watching the shows until you are chosen to play.
These are simply some guidelines to help you make your choices. If you should have a favorite outfit that you're not sure about, by all means bring it along and we'll see if it will work on camera. And, as always, if you have any questions at any time, don't hesitate to give us a call.
So I didn't get to wear my "I'm with Stupid" t-shirt, with the arrow pointing to one of my competitors. (Also, they didn't use a very good proofreader ["3" and an inappropriate use of a semicolon].) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

2015 Miss Universe Pageant[edit]

At about 10:45 p.m. while watching the live broadcast of the Miss Universe Pageant on NBC, I wondered when the last time a Miss USA won the title. I checked Wikipedia and before the announcement was made on the live broadcast, Wikipedia announced that Miss Columbia was the "current" Miss Universe and had been crowned on January 25, 2015 in Miami.

How is it that the name of the winner was posted on Wikipedia before it was announced on the live broadcast? (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. But it could be a case of simple vandalism. I often work on the "Academy Awards" articles. And, on Awards night, a lot of people are fooling around and naming their favorite person as the winner. And, within a few seconds, the vandalism edit gets removed. It's pretty common on very current competitions. This probably happens with the Super Bowl, and stuff like that as well. But, on the plus side: when an event is current, there are usually many eyes on that page. So, vandalism gets removed pretty quickly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What time zone are you in? The event apparently started at 8 PM in Florida and the NBC air time was 8/7c, meaning it was live in the eastern and central time zones and tape delayed by 2+ hours elsewhere in the US. -- BenRG (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I had assumed that the original poster was watching it live. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP geolocates to Florida but that is not conclusive. One question is was the broadcast three hours long? Here is another possible explanation - ever since Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction (if not before) live events aren't actually live. With the exception of sports (and maybe even those) there is a minute or two delay built into a broadcast. I remember when Melissa Leo dropped the "f" bomb at her Oscar acceptance speech we didn't even hear a bleep it just looked like she had shifted an inch to her left at that point. So someone in the pageant audience might have added the info a couple minutes before it was seen on TV. Now I haven't looked at the edit history so this guesswork may be way off. MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. But in those cases (e.g., Melissa Leo, etc.), aren't we talking about mere seconds? Or is it longer? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It can be as long a delay as they want it to be. So I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is delayed by several minutes in case of something drastic happening, it will give them more time to cut to a commercial or simply edit something larger out. Other things that they might want to remove go from curse words being uttered to streakers running across the stage to even nuts with guns. Dismas|(talk) 16:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is longer now JAS. I assumed the delay was at least a minute. According to the last paragraph here Broadcast delay#Computerized delay it is 30 seconds. In ML's case the "something that can be quite jarring to a viewer or listener" certainly applied. It wasn't until I read the papers the next day that I learned the she had used the f bomb - yes that is an old fogey admission I am sure that those who use social media knew it within a few minutes :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Did that entry turn out to be true? If so, maybe the vandal merely guessed right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was true. My guess is the competition was winding down to the last few contestants. And Miss Colombia (who, only by coincidence, was the eventual winner) had a fan that was fooling around and prematurely listed her in the article as the winner. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Stranger shit happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
If the contest was on January 25, then yes, it was vandalism. An anonymous editor made a series of 5 edits from 21:35 to 21:47 UTC (4:35 to 4:47 pm EST in the US) on January 24, updating various parts of the article as if Miss Colombia (a word that does not have a U in it, by the way) had already won. -- (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see where the IP address of that anonymous editor originates from. Colombia? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It locates to Venezuela which is right next door. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And home to the defending champion. Those countries have a history of (allegedly) harbouring each other's enemies. Probably unlikely to go all the way to the top here, but also unlikely that was a native vandal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
  • "Live" has come to trade in the same debased currency as "free". I was watching the supposedly live broadcast of the Allan Border Medal presentation last night. During a break I checked my phone for online news, and there was the winner's announcement, posted 14 minutes earlier. The winner is named at the very end of the TV broadcast, which was still about an hour away. So much for "live broadcasts". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The censor (and everybody else) working on the KDOC New Year Special are why we can't have live things. At least can't let the whole world see them. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
That montage was missing the grand finale. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment ke liye kuch bhi karega indian woman Guinness world record[edit]

What is the woman's name who was on the show carrying bricks with a thing that connects her ears to the bricks and also she broke the world record in Guinness? Also, which season and episode was it on? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the Daily Express here, her name is Asha Rani (not to be confused with the Asha Rani on whom we have an article) and she performed the feat on or about January 29, 2014. I'll see if I can track down details of the broadcast. Tevildo (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It was apparently Season 5, Episode 6, first broadcast on May 20, 2014, although I've yet to track down a website that isn't full of adverts and malware to link to. (Entertainment Ke Liye Kuch Bhi Karega for our article on the show, incidentally). Tevildo (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Who performs the SNL closing theme?[edit]

It sounds like two saxophones. The alto sax player, I have heard, is the show's music director. They show him with a bass guitar player, but there's no way a bass guitar can hold notes as long as the ones I am hearing. I say it's a baritone sax playing the low notes, but I can't find anything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A bass guitar can do a lot of things, depending on the effects pedal. But then again, Ron Blake plays a real baritone sax for the Saturday Night Live Band. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
So apparently they're not showing him. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
If you're watching a pre-2007 episode, you won't see him. Lew Del Gatto played baritone (among other things) from 1975-79, then 1985-2005. German Wikipedia has an article, but we don't. Maybe we should. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
George Young could also use more recognition than a quarter note. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, January 27, 2015 (UTC)
Even though there have been older episodes in prime time, I'm primarily thinking of the past three seasons. I started watching after they started showing those prime time reruns, which were originally the previous week's episode condensed to an hour.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I just looked it up. Lenny Pickett, the musical director, is actually playing a tenor sax. But he's playing the high notes so it seems like an alto sax.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity (?) identification[edit]

I was wondering - who are the modern people depicted in this animation from the BBC History of Ideas series? The erastes is presumably Peter Ustinov - who are the eromenoi? And is a reference to any particular film in which Ustinov plays such a character intended? Tevildo (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm intrigued as to why you think it depicts modern people at all. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, they're not depicted as potential models for classical sculpture, they do have fairly distinctive rather than generic facial characteristics, and the chap with the sunglasses and the cigar would be out-of-place in ancient Athens. But I agree that it's possible they're not intended to represent any particular real people. Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Having watched it twice they look generic to my eye. Having said that the one you mention looks more like Charles Laughton than Ustinov. There was at least one Bugs Bunny cartoon where they depicted Laughton in his role as Captain Bligh and that is who this one reminds me of. There was another one which featured all manner of stars from the 30's and early 40's at a formal party. I can't remember their titles - maybe Baseball Bugs can. I will be interested to see if any other editors can suggest who they might be. You might try contacting the Beeb to see it they can put you in touch with the makers of this animation. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the production company's website, thanks. Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Doing some poking about in the dark depths of Twitter, the character is named as "Uncle Monty", which leads me to suspect it's Richard Griffiths and the film is Withnail and I, which I regret to say that I've not watched. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? If so, who are the other three? But I may be on the wrong track altogether. Tevildo (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That's definitely it. Richard E. Grant (Withnail) and Paul McGann (...& I) are clearly in there too. And Ralph Brown (Danny). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on tracking it down to you both. T the film is a one of a kind. If you ever do see it I would stay away from the associated drinking game. Unless your constitution is strong and your liver is in great condition :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The sequel Withnail and II was a great disappointment. —Tamfang (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
My intrigue has been assuaged. Thank you, Tevildo. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 28[edit]

Copyright status of photos in old magazines that are out of copyright themselves[edit]

Here's something I've been wondering about for a while. hosts a huge load of old movie magazines these days, but are the photos in the magazines themselves out of copyright? If I wanted to use a photo from some old movie that was featured in an article (and for argument's sake, let's say it was a movie that isn't out of copyright yet), would the studio still hold the copyright to the promotional photos? I expect so, but I was wondering if anyone had a definite answer to this. What exactly is the copyright status of such photos? Snowgrouse (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See Threshold of originality and sweat of the brow for more details, but generally, in Anglo-American copyright traditions, faithful reproductions of a work retain the copyright status of the original. So a still from a movie which was in the public domain would also be in the public domain, and a photograph of a movie screen showing a movie in the public domain would also be in the public domain. Simply put a photograph of a public domain work is itself in the public domain; the person who takes the photograph does not establish a new copyright. This only applies to faithful reproductions of the original. Artistic modifications, such as L.H.O.O.Q., where a work in the public domain was modified for artistic purposes, would have established a new copyright. Also, the use of a PD work within a larger work (such as a photograph of a street scene where someone was wearing a T-Shirt that had an image in the public domain) does not invalidate the copyright of the larger work. But so long as the reproduction adds nothing substantial new to the original, the original's copyright status (or lack thereof) would carry over. --Jayron32 15:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Weird video game genre mixes[edit]

Some genre mixes are just eccentric, for example DoomRL aka Doom the Roguelike.

Even the core features conflict (FPS: fast-paced 3D action game, Roguelike: top-down view, turn-based, ASCII art), but still, DoomRL is quite enjoyable if you like FPS and roguelike titles.

Another example: Dating sims. If you take away most of the dating and fanservice, but keep the relations and the pacing, you'd get a game that would fit the 3-word description of Sims: The Roguelike. This has been done, but without sacrificing all graphics, and is known (for certain values of "known") as Kudos.

OTOH, Diablo the Roguelike doesn't sound, nor feel, half as weird – mostly because Diablo is a spiritual successor of the average fantasy-setting Roguelike with graphics and real-time gameplay.

Question: Is there a name for that kind of mix, which looks silly or even impossible at first? I didn't find anything better than "genre mixing", which doesn't hint at the weirdness of the mix. (A quick look at TV Tropes pages with "dissonance" didn't return anything useful either.)

A label like "FPS roguelike" would fit DoomRL, but that would only include one mix. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a mashup or genre bending (movies [3], books [4], games[5]) or genre blurring (games [6], [7])? A genre bastard might be appropriate to convey the odd couple of parent genres. But really, I think you're better of using a whole phrase: "Dwarf fortress is hard to classify, because it has traits of Roguelikes, City-building sims, and sandbox games."
A few other comments: DoomRL is sort of a bad example, because it has very few traits of an FPS. First, I don't think there is any first person perspective (I could be wrong, I mostly play DCSS :) Secondly, FPS usually implies real-time action. I suppose there is shooting though. As far as I can tell, DoomRL only takes plot/concept/style from Doom, and is otherwise a fairly normal RL. Likewise, games like Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead and UnReal World are usually considered squarely Roguelike, even though they don't have any traditional fantasy elements in terms of plots, characters, or setting. DoomRL, CDDA, and URW are all usually just called Roguelikes, because the traditional high fantasy theme isn't seen as a necessary trait.
My point is, increasingly games (and movies, novels, etc) are described in terms of traits, rather than trying to shoe-horn them into genre labels. Have you ever looked at the subreddit /r/roguelikes ? About every third thread is people complaining that some game isn't a "true" RL, and the same tired points get made over and over again, and it's not very fun or informative IMO. There is another interesting point that (to my knowledge) nobody ever called Halo a "Doomlike" or "Wolfensteinlike", even though those two games largely defined their genres similar to how Rogue did. So maybe "Roguelike" is a crappy name, because the elements of similarity are highly subjective.
There's some traction for the term procedural death labyrinth [8] to describe many RL as well as games like Spelunky that have procedural/random level generation and permadeath, which are seen as many as the key elements of Rogue and RL that many other genres are borrowing. Anyway, it's a very interesting topic but genre classification is inherently problematic (see e.g. [9] [10]), and my opinion is that it's more useful to discuss these hybrid games in terms of traits rather than genres. Finally, the "weirdness" of the mix is itself highly subjective. Some people were surprised Spelunky worked so well. I was not, it seemed like a natural experiment to me, and I'd been waiting for a game like that for years :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 29[edit]