Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 13

American Girl

What has happen to it this past decade? Know that Mattel Company acquired it in 1998 or whatever happen. The founder/whatever (Pleasant Rowland) else was title retired in 2001. Have to say it hasn't been the same as what it was before with Ms Rowland being in charged of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The American Girl article (assuming that's what you're asking about) has various "controversies", but I don't think it addresses the rhetorical question you're asking. You're probably best off to hit up Google and see what you can find others saying about it. I feel safe in saying that there is probably not a shortage of opinions, blogs, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, an interesting answer to my question. Please see below as to what I meant.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who's confused, American Girl is a line of dolls in historic period dress. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Ha Take On Me

What does lead singer Morten Harket sing in the song "Take on Me" by a-Ha in the second verse?

"So needless to say I'm odds and ends, ???????????????? Stumbling away Slowly learning that life is ok Say after me It's no better to be safe than sorry"

I can't understand it, anyone knows what he sang? Here's the link for the music video if you want to hear/see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EXxMlIExpo thanks. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a jillion sites for song lyrics. You're missing "But that's me". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been to some sites, but "But that's me" still sounds nothing like what he sings. Those lyrics are to short for what he does sing. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've found that lyrics on the web are often wrong, sometimes very wrong. Most sites seem to have this line wrong. He does not sing "but that's me". The line is:

So needless to say I'm odds and ends,

But I'll be stumbling away.

He sings "but I'll be" with an odd timing, which makes it a little hard to catch the words, but I'm 100% sure that's what he sings. It's a little easier to understand in the rarely seen original video.

These words also have the advantage of making sense, considering the message of the chorus. Our article on "Take on Me" says, euphemistically, that "The lyrics are a plea for love", but really they seem to be a plea for sex before he leaves, maybe addressed to a stranger or fan: "I'll be gone in a day or two...." —Kevin Myers 07:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds much better, "But I'll be", thanks everyone, I appreciate it, and I must say, this is my favorite song since Monday. Hee hee. I was listening to that first, rare version earlier today, and it is a little bit easier to understand. Thanks. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, it's much better then I having to sing "Zipper la me." Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Scene from an old film

Our headmaster used to show us old films on a projector when we were at school around 1980. the films were from much earlier though. I remember he would show us Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. And there was this other film, a kind of Sword and Sorcery thing (Black and White?) and the main scene I remember is this bit where the protagonist had to bathe in dragons blood to protect himself from some evil foe. But he had a leaf stuck to his back, so the blood didn't wet him there, and this spot on his back became his Achilles' heel. Maybe an arrow got him here and that was how he died? Ring any bells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.107.244 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen (1924). Though this is a really old and silent movie. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's it. Amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.107.244 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The bathing scene can be viewed toward the end of this clip. Start at 6:51, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear quote about all things of quality being from Europe

Resolved

A few years ago Jeremy Clarkson said on Top Gear something to the effect of "Nearly all things of quality come from Europe". (It might have been only about cars, but I don't think so.) Does anyone remember the exact quote or in what episode this was? Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't have the exact quote at hand but he and Richard were comparing the merits of an American muscle car (Dodge Charger? Ford Mustang?) vs a BMW M6 convertible. In the same quote he mentioned Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal (the finalists in one of the recent tennis Opens) and something soccer-related (France winning the World Cup?) to illustrate that everything Europeans do is better. Wikiquote didn't give me anything though...try Google? Zunaid 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The only episode that I see on our list that mentions the M6 is episode one of series 7. I don't think it's this episode though because during this one, the guys decide that all French cars are rubbish while looking through a customer satisfaction poll. They also mention that Japanese cars feature prominently in the top of the same poll. I will agree with Zunaid in that I seem to recall the comment being made while they were driving American cars. Dismas|^(talk) 07:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow!...this took more Google-fu than I knew I had in me...Top Gear Series 8, Episode 6. Jeremy Clarkson: "OK, remind me - who were the last four teams in the World Cup? All European. Women's finalists at Wimbledon? Both European. Men's finalists, both European. Anything in any walk of life is better done by Europeans and it's the same with cars." You're welcome. Zunaid 14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 14

Professions, etc.

Why are Hollywood stars so lecherous??? Is it their profession that makes them so or is it their nature?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say that they're any more lecherous than the rest of the population? Going along with your assumption for the moment though, I'd say it's probably like people who win the lottery and then go out spending lots of money. They're just gluttons. Dismas|^(talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note that activities that you see in newspapers will be massively exaggerated, overreported, and generally distorted. They're trying to sell papers - lechery (real word?) sells papers. There is also the fact that good deeds tend to go unreported; they're less interesting. You don't often see the headline "Star continues to live happy life with wife". So even if the premise "Hollywood stars are lecherous" is true, it won't be as bad as the media present it. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the publicity, they're generally much more beautiful/handsome, rich, and glamorous than the average person, attracting lots of groupies, so they get more opportunities. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was about to point out the media angle as well. You don't hear about the long lasting marriages because they don't sell newspapers (tabloids). If you Google "Hollywood's longest marriages" you find quite a few names. High profile names include Tom Hanks & Rita Wilson (married since 1988), Will Smith & Jada Pinkett Smith (1997), Danny DeVito & Rhea Perlman (1982), Catherine Zeta Jones & Michael Douglas (2000), and others who I'm not going to bother looking up include Kevin Bacon & Kyra Sedgwick, Sarah Jessica Parker & Matthew Broderick, and Melanie Griffith & Antonio Banderas. And there was an actor that died last year, whose name I can't recall right now, who was married for something more than 50 years. Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The media coverage does figure into the perception that actors get married and divorced a lot, although it's not exactly a new perception. Will Rogers once joked about being "as happy as a Hollywood ac-tore with a new divorce!" Divorce was perhaps less common, percentagewise, among the masses, but that's due to a phenomenon aptly described by Alan King: "Divorce was a luxury that few could afford." While some argue that the rise in divorce rate of the general US population during the last half-century is a sign of moral decay, it can also be argued that it's now much more affordable, thanks to post-WWII prosperity, and people are less willing to put up with bad situations than they once were. Actors, at least the well-paid ones, were always in a better position to afford it. But nowadays, it would be difficult to prove that actors get married and divorced more than the general population. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Dismas, the dude that was married for 50 years was Paul Newman to his wife Joanne Woodward. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was slightly off on the date as he died in 2008, but yes, I believe I was thinking of Newman. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, he was married to someone else before that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that few people would label him "lecherous" for that. Is the OP one of those? I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the OP is referring more to the serial monogamists such as Zsa Zsa Gabor, Liz Taylor, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a Hollywood star is not a profession, it's an occupation. Being a doctor or lawyer for example is a profession. 89.242.120.116 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an outmoded and elitist position. These days, everyone is expected to act professionally in the performance of the thing they're being paid for - it's often written into their job requirements or contract - in return for which, they're surely entitled to refer to what they do as their "profession". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So you'd be happy to be treated by a doctor or surgeon with six months training who could never get barred for incompetence? 92.24.26.120 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, this receptionist is particularly noted for her professionalism (note the alt-text). —Akrabbim^talk 19:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is being a professional athlete a profession? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Why wouldn't it be? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely the point. A professional athlete or a professional actor, both are professions. But not like doctors and lawyers, as pro athletes and pro actors typically get way much more money. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as doctors and lawyers practice, you would think they would be good at their jobs.

Hey! The ref desk is a serious place! Grow up! Act your age! Dare to be dull! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are all confusing a profession with behaving with professionalism. A profession is characterised by "a) Altruism. A commitment to to serving the client and society. b) A specialist body of knowledge acquired during a long periosd of education and training. c) Control over training, qualification, recruitment and expulsion. d) A code of ethics. e) Fee earning." From Chapter 12 of Sociology by Stephen Harris. The essential characteristic is that a profession is regulated by a professional body, and unless you belong to that body you cannot practise in that profession. Professionalism is a very good thing and everyone should strive towards it, but it is not the same as a profession. See, for example this http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/183/2/95 which includes description of the characteristics of professions. Unfortunately the word professional is also used to mean not-amateur - having at least two meanings for one word causes confusion. 92.24.26.120 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's generally defines a profession as a "public declaration", which is what it literally means. The concept focused originally on clergy who would declare or "profess" belief in their faith. From there is progressed to any kind of "calling" that requires long and intensive study. It is also used to mean "a principle calling, vocation, or employment." By extension, it also means "the whole body of persons engaged in a calling". In that sense, actors and athletes are professionals just as surely as doctors and lawyers (and clergy) are. This would contrast with, say, a laborer, who could learn his job in a matter of days or even hours. Hence you might get paid to detassel corn, but you probably wouldn't call detasseling a "profession". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to tease out the different meanings of the same word when having discussions like this. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, sixth edition, gives at least three different meanings to Profession. The first meaning is as you write, declaration or avowal, including a religious declaration. The second meaning is vocation or calling that requires advanced learning or science. The learned professions are divinity, law, and medicine. The third meaning is the body of persons engaged in a profession. Interestingly, it says that "the profession" is theatre slang for actors and actresses. It also describes professional: meanings include belonging to a profession or being the opposite of amateur. Professionalism is "qualities or typical features of a profession or professionals".

I think giving a clear and correct description of professionalism is very important. People around the world are going to be looking at that Wikipedia article for guidence on how to behave in a professional way: with integrity, impartiality, altruism, honesty, reflection (in the sense of thinking about what you did and how to improve it next time you do it), etc. More professionalism means less corruption and less wars. If everyone at Enron had behaved with professionalism then it wouldnt have happened. I looked at the profession article some time ago and it was really terrible. I'm truely afraid to look at it now. The Chapter 12 of the Sociology book by Stephen Harris would make a great article on profession, but I'm fully aware that copying isnt allowed. 92.24.123.30 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sudoku

I've only recently done a few of these puzzles. I've attempted some of the harder ones and it has me wondering if any guessing is ever involved. Is there always a logical path or does finding the solution sometimes rely on making a guess and seeing if that helps you? Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure having to guess means it's an example of a bad puzzle. So, maybe you will have to guess - but you shouldn't have to. It's not like there's a regulatory body for sudoku, after all. ;) Vimescarrot (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As reference: This website doesn't address the question correctly, but includes the line They actually required guessing at a certain point, which sudoku purists consider a real no-no. You'll find similar things on Google; I searched "sudoku requires guess". Vimescarrot (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if "guessing" is quite the right word, but I will suppose that a certain number belongs in one position, then fill in the rest until it's either completed (if my supposition was correct) or I find a conflict (in which case my supposition was wrong). If it was wrong, I try a different number in that spot and see if that works out. For more complex puzzles, I may need to "guess" the values of several spots at once, and try out many combos until I find the correct one. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This process I have tried, but it sucks for me because I use a pen. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is based on a false premise. Since there are a limited number of possibilities for each position, making a guess and seeing if it leads to a contradiction is a "logical path" to a solution. There's no logical difference between saying "this square can't be a 4 because there's already a 4 in that row" and "this square can't be a 4 because then that square would have to be a 6, and so that square would have to be a 1, but there's already a 1 in that row." Of course there is a big difference in terms of how easy it is to solve the puzzle. --Anonymous, 04:55 UTC, March 14, 2010.

Yeah, but you know what he means and didn't have to be pedantic about a slightly-off choice of 2 words. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can be plenty pedantic, but I wasn't being pedantic here. As soon as you say "this square can't be a 4 because", you are making a guess (4) and rejecting it. For the simple cases, you get so used to doing it that you don't realize that is what you're doing. If you learn to handle more complex situations, you will no longer see them as guessing-and-rejecting. There really is no distinction. --Anonymous, 08:43 UTC, March 15, 2010.

You should never have to guess. Of the thousands of sudoku that I've done, not a single one has required guessing. You could guess, of course, but you'd be roughly as successful as when you guess while doing a crossword. (Well, I guess you'd be 2.6 times as likely, but you get the point...:-). Don't guess: figure. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all (except the pedant)! I didn't think it would be left up to guessing but then I haven't done too many of these. Dismas|^(talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you find them enjoyable, I'd suggest getting one of the many sudoku puzzle books out there that offer puzzles in varying degrees of difficulty. If a hard one gets frustrating, go back and do a couple of easy ones to regain the feel for the logic you'll require. The "cheat" (kind of) is to pencil in all the possible numbers in each square and then work back through to find the hidden clues. I say it's a cheat because there's no way to not get the answer at the end (provided you're careful of your steps); doing the work portion in your head is the challenge. Matt Deres (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You never have to guess. Sudoku is an excellent puzzle because there are many different techniques required to complete the more tricky ones - you'll encounter occasional eureka moments as you find them. Enjoy. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but often times on the harder problems, the logical method involves thinking several moves ahead in your mind. ("I can't put a four here, because then I'd have to put a 3 in the top row and that would conflict with the three in the top right corner.") If you worked that out with a pencil instead of in your head it would definitely count as a "guess" in my mind. APL (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that could possibly be a guess. Guessing involves not being sure - but you are sure, based on the restrictions of the game, that the move you're about to make must be correct. That's more like "thinking through the consequences logically". I also don't understand what difference it makes whether you're tracking the logic in your head or with a pencil; either you've used logic or you haven't. A guess in sudoku would be more like this: "I can't figure out the next move. I know the bottom right 9-box is missing the 3 and the 6, so I'll put the 3 here and the 6 there and I'll have a 50% chance of getting it right." That's a guess because it involves the risk of being wrong and it's not how the game is supposed to be played. Matt Deres (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how it's played. You then check out if your "guess" is correct based on how every other square must be assigned, and either keep the guess or reverse it, accordingly. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps it depends on one's interpretation of what guessing means. I too see characteristics of trial and error problem solving techniques, which apparently are sometimes also called "guess and check". ---Sluzzelin talk 13:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I consider it a "guess" once you write it down. Consider an analogy with driving to a destination and wondering "do I need to turn right or left here ?" If you're able to recall the correct direction with 100% certainty before turning, that's not a guess. If you can't recall and turn one way at random, hoping it's the correct way (and reversing direction if it turns out not to be), then that's a "guess". So, to me, it qualifies as a guess if you take any concrete action based on uncertain info, regardless of whether that action can be reversed. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When I do suduko, I don't think "This can't be 4 because XYZ", I think "XYZ, therefore this can't be 4". The difference may seem inconsequential, but it isn't. The former is guessing, the latter isn't. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the first one can be called a guess. I agree with Anonymous above - there is no difference. A guess would be to randomly chuck a 4 into the grid and then go from there - I don't think anyone plays like that. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See the article Backtracking for a way to program a computer to solve sudokus. It seems to me that it is this algorithm which people above disagree over whether should be called "guessing" or not. Aenar (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no matter how you play you're going to be checking and ruling out possibilities until you're left with only one possible answer. Whether you check a possibility by writing down some numbers or you do it all in your head is not fundamentally different. Rckrone (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I consider "guessing" to be when you have two spaces in a 9 box and you know that they have to be a 3 and a 6. You can't figure it out, so you just put them in and take your chances. You have a fifty percent chance of being right. Dismas|^(talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When to refer to sharps or flats

I have a book of guitar chords that begins at C and lists thirty or forty billion different chords. My question refers to the sharp and flat chords - sometimes the book refers to a flat, and othertimes to a sharp, so the whole sequence of chords in my book runs: C C# D Eb E F F# G Ab A Bb B Is this standard in music? I would have thought the author of the book would have picked either sharps or flats and stuck with that throughout, this way seems a bit arbitrary. So I wonder if musicians always use these chords - not referring to D# if they can refer to Eb.

I am aware that on the stave, sometimes circumstances dictate which notes are used for ease of reading, sometimes so much that double sharps and flats have to be used, I'm asking really if I were to compose a tune and announce to musicians that it was in A#, if they'd all laugh. FreeMorpheme (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This may not be the definitive answer, but as a musician myself, when I look at this sequence I see the names of chords most frequently used in bands of mixed instruments. You see, Eb and Bb are very common in music written to include saxes or other brass instruments. While they may well be equivalent to D# and A#, you may not encounter these chords/keys called that very often. At a guess your book is aimed at jazz guitarists or pop/rock/blues guitarists, rather than classical. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that because saxes and other brass work naturally better in those flat keys? Reading now about the cycle of fiths it seems that the convention has arisen from this - I'm currently struggling with why C# has seven sharps but the same key represented in Db only has five flats - but I'll get there! FreeMorpheme (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And while researching the answer I have found that certain keys are consistently annotated with flats rather than sharps - for instance C minor is always said to have three flats, whereas as far as I am concerned it may just have well have three sharps. Is there a resource anywhere that explains this? The wiki articles are by no means set up for a lay explanation. FreeMorpheme (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

C minor has the same key signature as E♭ major: B♭, E♭ and A♭. That means that every instance of the notes B, E and A is flattened. It is NOT the same as the rarely encountered key signature D♯ major, in which every instance of every note is sharpened, and F and C are doubly sharpened. You could get the same performing result as C minor by, instead of playing B♭, E♭ and A♭ where B, E and A are written, you played A♯, D♯ and G♯, because they're exactly the same notes. But you could NOT get the same result by having the key signature consist of A♯, D♯ and G♯ rather than B♭, E♭ and A♭. That would mean that every time you see an A written on the page, you'd play a different note, A♯; but you'd leave B untouched as B, whereas you should be playing a B♭. It would sound completely weird, unmusical and wrong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So am I right in thinking this is just a convention that's arisen due to problems with the stave notation? You say that a musician would play a B natural if only the A is written is sharpened, but if we take the music off the stave then the notes A# and Bb are identical. So somewhere there must be a list of all the keys and whether or not they are conventionally referred to as sharp or flat... FreeMorpheme (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the graphic at circle of fifths? Staecker (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The convention with sharps and flats, and the apparent confusion thereof, arises from the usage of tempered scales because most modern instruments are incapable of playing more than one scale in Just intonation. The deal is, in any just intonation scheme, the sizes of the intervals do NOT fit perfectly into an octave the way that one would expect them to when playing, say, the guitar or the piano. Musical scales and keys are written from the perspective of just intonation, and as such, D♯ and C♭ are not actually the same note. Depending on the tuning system and the particular key, those notes could be up to 1/2 a semitone apart. Most modern instruments are tuned to equal temperament, which fudges just intonation in such a way as to make playing fretted or keyed instruments possible in multiple keys without retuning, but as such, it makes certain approximations, such as making flats and shaps enharmonic. We are so used to playing in equal temperament that the harmonic reasons for writing a note as D♯ rather than C♭ are lost to us; but they are not really the same note. That's also why you get keys with notes like F♯♯ instead of just writing it as G. The twin situations of making a written key transposable for transposing instruments (as noted above) AND the fact that music is written in just intonation but usually played on a tempered instrument is why people are being confused. --Jayron32 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment to avoid confusion, Jayron: Where you're comparing D♯ with C♭, the comparison ought to be between C♯ and D♭. (D♯ and C♭ are indeed very different notes, as different as E♭ and B. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's because I'm stupid. Thanks for fixing that. --Jayron32 12:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayron's explanation is incorrect. Any double-sharp or double-flat (which incidentally would never be a key, only a note or the tonic of a chord) would be used instead of a whole tone higher/lower not because of intonation but because of internal logic; otherwise they are the same note, at least in terms of transcription. Here's the answer in terms of keys (which provide the names of basic guitar chords as if the chords were built on the tonic triad of the key; however, a chord could have a tonic that is the "non-standard" one if the context calls for it, e.g., you could have a C-flat chord under some circumstances even though there is no key of C-flat): F is used instead of E# because F has one flat and E# has eleven sharps; G is used instead of A-flatflat because G has one sharp and A-flatflat has eleven flats. It's simply the choice between which enharmonic key has six or fewer flats/sharps. The "tie" is between F# and G-flat, which both have six; thus, either key may be used. So: C; F, G; B-flat, D; E-flat, A; A-flat, E; D-flat, B; G-flat/F#: these are the keys because they have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 flats or sharps, and any other key would have 7 or more. As for minor keys, they are equivalent to their relative majors. C#m would be used instead of D-flat-m because one has has four sharps and the other has eight flats. Once the key is determined, the application of "accidentals" (in the notes themselves) is based on internal logic. 63.17.34.176 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

C-flat can be a key, as can C-double-flat, etc. No one writes music that way because it would be highly annoying. But lots of music, especially classical, has a clear harmonic logic involving modulations from key to key. Sometimes the notated key signature is changed when the music modulates, sometimes it isn't and you just get an increase in the number of accidentals. Either way if the harmonic logic clearly indicates a modulation from, say, C major to the dominant G major, then the music is in the key of G major. Bach was always very careful to notate pitch accidentals "correctly" for whatever key the music had modulated to, but the temperaments of his day did not allow one to modulate to remote double flat or sharp keys. By Beethoven's time, however, equal temperament (or at least an approximation of it) had progressed to the point of smoothly eliminating all of the almost-enharmonic-but-not-quite pitch commas. This allowed composers like Beethoven to do funny modulation tricks; like following a path of harmonic logic that "should" end up in a different key but doesn't. For example: Beethoven's Appassionata piano sonata's first movement starts in F minor and after a bunch of harmonically downward modulations ends in the key of Abbbb minor. Of course Beethoven notated Abbbb minor as if it was F minor, even though the harmonic logic of the modulations points to Abbbb minor. Writing it in the "correct" key would be ridiculous. Quadruple flats? And anyway, Beethoven was likely making a point about how you can do such a thing in equal temperament (or whatever precursor temperament he was using at the time). He's saying, check it out, all these modulations should end up in a key far far from where we started, but as if by magic it is the *same* key, dude! It was a sneaky trick--in his time a sonata in F minor should begin and end in F minor. The Appassionata modulates to a key quite remote from F minor yet ends on F minor anyway. Nice trick. Harmonic magic! From the F minor start the key modulates ever flatter, "passing through" two commas (a Great Diesis making Fb=E and a diaschisma making Gb=F#), which combined result in the key of Abbbb minor being eventually attained. Over the two centuries since Beethoven's day this "virtual key return" trick became so commonplace that is no longer remarkable in the least. The weirdness is lost to us--it's just F minor, who ever heard of Abbbb minor? Anyway, while no one in their right mind would consider dealing with the key of Abbbb minor, it does exist. I know, I'm being a music theory pedant. I apologize. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "It's simply the choice between which enharmonic key has six or fewer flats/sharps." Of course C##### (or whatever) "can" be a "key." Also, the OP says "I have a book of guitar chords," which strongly implies modern "pop" notation in which one might run into (e.g.) a C-flat CHORD but would never run into the KEY of C-flat. See, e.g., Miss Macbeth in the Spike songbook based on the Elvis Costello album of the same name; there's a splendid A-double-flat chord to begin the bridge. Also, a song on Paul Simon's album One-Trick Pony, as transcribed in the songbook for that album, "modulates" from one key to its enharmonic equivalent (different "letter") tonic but in the parallel minor, if I remember correctly (I think the song is Oh, Marion). For a really complex modern "pop" songbook, see that of Joni Mitchell's Mingus, with many C-flat chords and double-sharps and the like (and which was unkindly mocked in a biography of Charles Mingus for over-complicating the chord-names in the song Goodbye Porkpie Hat -- those chords thrilled my teenage imagination long ago ...) 63.17.69.4 (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 15

gsp

what primetime episode was it where gsp gave tour of his house and said he hated his family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is gsp? --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"GSP" is usually Georges St. Pierre these days, but I'm not sure which prime time this would be. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, apparently there is a "UFC Primetime" show for which we do not have an article. I don't know the answer yet but it might be the very first episode which aired before UFC 94. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "UFC Primetime" is a television show. -- kainaw™ 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Georges, never heard of you. --Dweller (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This link[1] indicates that GSP indeed stands for Georges St. Pierre. I never heard of him either. But at least we have something to go on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

mark marshall (footballer) for swindon town - height mistake

Hi

I have signed up to wiki as I saw an error I wanted to correct but after signing up Ive found I cant edit what I want to. There is a mistake on the personal information to do with Mark Marshall the swindon town footballer. I have seen him play and his height is about 5 ft 6 or 5 ft 7 and not 6 ft. The reference comes from the official swindon town website and they have got his height wrong at 6 ft aswell. What do you suggest I do to try and edit this mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwizard19 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First, questions like this belong on the talk page of the article. Second, your first stage of fixing this is to be sure that you are right. Judging a player's height by 'having seen them play' is not a very accurate way of finding it out. If you are sure, what you need to do is find references that back up the statement that he is 5 ft 6 (or 5 ft 7). When you have found them, and are sure that they are more reliable than the Swindon town website and cite them, and then change the article yourself. The other advantage of asking this on the article talk page is that other people interested in Mark Marshall can help you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Mark Marshall (footballer). --Dweller (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Identify film from plot

The film starts with a professor being arrested, suspected of having murdered his ex-wife. Flashbacks switches between depicting the professor as a psychotic killer and just some guy with a weird sense of humour. While the professor is in custody, the police searches his house, but find no evidence. He is eventually released. The film is likely a few years old.

This was a reader's question in a film magazine that went unanswered. Perhaps we can do better? decltype (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like The Fugitive (film). 134.126.192.188 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean The Fugitive (1993 film)? I haven't seen it, but it doesn't quite seem to fit, judging from its (very lengthy) plot summary. decltype (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 16

How to cite a TV program shown on CNN / how to find the title, editor, etc

Hi. Some time ago (around Mar 5) I happened to see a program on CNN about different genocides in recent times (about Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc). I made some notes about the program and now I would like to cite some of the things mentioned in the program in an academic essay for university. But how do I make the correct reference? I do not know at all what the name of the program was, who the director was, or even when exactly the program was shown. I just know that it was shown on English-speaking CNN around Mar 5 (or maybe a couple of days earlier). Is there any way to find the details of that program? According to the Harvard Referencing System, I need the title of program, the name of Director/Program Editor or Producer, the location of Production Company and the name of Broadcasting Company. Thank you very much in advance for your help! --Tilmanb (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could it have been a repeat of Christiane Amanpour's Scream Bloody Murder? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

YES! Wow, that was quick! =) Now I just need to confirm the name of Director/Program Editor or Producer, the location of Production Company and the name of Broadcasting Company. AND IMPORTANTLY: A confirmation somewhere that this was indeed the documentary shown in March 2010 (and not just in 2008). Thank you so much! --Tilmanb (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe I just write down what I know by now. How would this reference look like:

Scream Bloody Murder (2010, Mar 5) [TV Documentary]. Program Producer: Christiane Amanpour. Atlanta: CNN International.
--Tilmanb (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This says the show aired on March 7. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It can't be March 7 because I sent an email about the program on March 6 (the date obviously being verifiable in my email program), so at that time I already must have seen it. I am not sure whether I sent the email still on the same day or the next day, i.e. whether the program was on March 6 or March 5. Hmm, this is getting increasingly complicated... Why doesn't CNN show their past program schedules anywhere?? --Tilmanb (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be much of an issue anyway. You can just confirm it was the program you saw by checking it out on Youtube (in 14 parts). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Music Video "Pop Goes My Heart"

The video is from the movie "Music And Lyrics" and in it there is a fictional "has been" 80's band called "Pop". In the story line the band had a really big hit back in the 80's and there was a music video for it and for use in the movie they actually made a music video in the 80's style of music video's :)

A girl is the subject of the song and a pretty actress plays the girl in the music video... Who is she in real life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.159.49 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The typical place to look is the full cast listing at IMDB for the movie. But they don't list any part that sounds like "girl in video". She may be one of the actresses credited as "dancer". Staecker (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trademark for a name in the Nurse with Wound list?

One of 294 names in the Nurse with Wound list is Franz de Byl. Recently someone logging in as Franzdebyl removed that name, and wrote in his edit summary: "Steven Stapleton [Nurse with Wound] was never allowed to use and abuse my name for his own interests". After I changed it back (the name most definitely is a part of the nww-list), he reverted and wrote this edit summary: "I send an Email to Wikipedia about this issue. So please leave it like it is now until Wikipedia answers to this copyright problem". Today he wrote under an IP-number: "my name is a TRADE MARK too. So I removed it again. Would be so nice if you nuggers could leave me alone now." (see the history of the page)

My question is: is the use of this name a case of copyright infringement? Can it be that Trademark law is applicable, even if Nurse with Wound never wanted to use it for his own gain? I believe not, but thought I'd ask here... Thanks for looking into it. Mark in wiki (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading this I've decided to revert. Some things are more important than the truth. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of giving legal advice, trademark law does not prevent someone from ever using a trademark; it only prevents them from using it in a trade situation. Even if a name is trademarked, Wikipedia is completely entitled to use that name in its articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's appropriate for a concise encyclopedia article to list 294 names in such a list; but if it is, a person listed in that list doesn't get to cut his name out of the list just because he wants to. Whether his purported trademark is real or not is not relevant (see our articles on Pokemon, for example). Our WP:BLP policy bears on this but doesn't have a rule saying people can elect to not be referenced in a relevant Wikipedia article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the more specific page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help, which is a page intended for individuals, including annoyed ones, who come to Wikipedia to change articles that mention them. "Not every request can be met. Wikipedia is a reference work. If articles could be modified as their subjects wished, it would lose much of its value, because many people would want an article that was biased in favor of their own agendas." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Films simular to Andrew Bujalski?

Can anyone recommend any films similar to the films of Andrew Bujalski, that are not considered to be part of the mumblecore movement?JennaJ82 (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaJ82 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something from our list of "select cinéma-vérité films". ---Sluzzelin talk 11:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting for swedish role-playing game?

What is considered the best campaign setting for the Swedish role-playing game Drakar och Demoner? For example, which one is most popular among the players, or got the best reviews in gaming journals? Links to both English and Scandinavian web sites are ok. Arbogast41637 (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some old (1985–1990) issues of Sinkadus in the basement, but I think most of them discuss Ereb Altor exclusively. You can read about the individual issues here. Are there any of them you would like me to dig up? Gabbe (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's ok. But thank you for the link. Arbogast41637 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Voice actors the Sims

Who were the voice actors in the first PC game in the Sims series?Lefannie (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This page gives the credits for the PC version of The Sims. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Oatmeal

What kind of humor does The Oatmeal have? Do you have suggestions for similar ones on the net? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the name of the humor, but the style and topics seems to resemble that of http://www.cracked.com, especially the section titled "Cracked Topics" You may want to check that out. --Jayron32 15:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Satire Juliankaufman (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March Madness

What are some of the key facts I should know about this year's March Madness? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Try http://www.espn.com and http://www.cbssports.com for a few well-respected sites that will offer oodles of analysis to help you fill out your brackets. As far as I can tell, the majority of analysts seem to be leaning towards a Kentucky-Kansas matchup in the championship game. The consensus best sleeper seems to be Cornell, which everyone seems to think is WAY underranked as a 12-seed. --Jayron32 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why "March Madness"?

Amazing - a question asked and answered, with no sign whatsoever as to what it's actually about! DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, at both high school (Illinois, at least) and college levels, the annual basketball tournaments have long been known as "March Madness", obviously a play on the "March hare" and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's some info on the term as applied to basketball:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For background for our non-American readers: March Madness is the colloquial term for the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, a 65-team tournament used to determine the top basketball team in Division I, the highest level of college athletics in the U.S. The biggest tradition associated with the tournament is the "filling out of the brackets". On Selection Sunday, the tournament field is announced, and people enter pools (gambling pools or friendly pools) where they try to predict the outcome of every single game in the tournament. The full tournament tree is called the "brackets" and people generally fill out a blank bracket with the winners of all of the games down to the championship. Everyone playing in a pool pitches in some amount of cash (or not, if they do it just for fun) and the person who gets the most games right wins the pot. The OP was asking about how to find out how to fill out his bracket, presumably, so I directed him to major sports websites where helpful analysis is usually posted. --Jayron32 02:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayron is right and thanks for the advice. FYI - I am a girl. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Boderlands siren phasewalk melee

i was wondering how many time can u melee in the sirens phasewalk cause once i got 2 melees in one phasewalk but i couldn't do it again later. my friend told me it was due to lag but i'm not sure if he's right. can u melee more than once in 1 phasewalk, if u can melee more than once in 1 phasewalk please tell me how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crack n cheese (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Meleeing in phasewalk always ends the phasewalk early. If you have done it more than once in a single walk, it's the result of lag (online) or a glitch. I'm unaware of a reliable glitch to produce multi-melee phasewalking. See this page (external link) for more information about maximising the effectiveness of your phasewalk. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 17

Zork I

I played Zork I, killed the troll with the sword and dropped the sword in the Troll Room. It reappeared in the Ladder Bottom in the coal mine! What's going on here? 4 T C 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The thief grabbed it, realized it was not a treasure, and dropped it somewhere else. He's liable to do this with any item lying around in an area you've visited. Algebraist 07:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bachleda-Curuś‎

Is the Polish speed skater Katarzyna Bachleda-Curuś‎ (née Wójcicka) related to Alicja the actress? If so, how? Sources I was able to find are all in Polish, surprise surprise. Can anyone confirm? From their respective articles the things that link them together seem to be their surnames and the city. Thx. --Kvasir (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried asking on the respective talk pages? Gabbe (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, both, no luck. --Kvasir (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Movie - "Undefeated" listed Paul Newman's daughter Melissa Newman playing the role of teenager Charlotte Langdon, yet she was only 8 years old.

According to all sources I have checked including Wikipedia, Melissa Newman, the daughter of Paul Newman was the girl that played Charlotte Langdon, the teenage daughter of Col. Langdon played by Rock Hudson.

She is courted by two men, Bubba, played by Jan Michael-Vincent and Blu the Indian scout played by Roman Gabriel.

The problem is: Melissa was born September 17, 1961 which would have made her most likely only 7 years old at time of filming.

I have posted this question in various forums and discussion and have yet to get an answer much less a response.

All sources confirm Melissa's birthday to be in 1961...that begs the question, who then is the girl in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.34.139 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB says that they are two separate Melissa Newman's: Melissa Newman (II) daughter of Paul, first acted in 1973 and Melissa Newman (I) who acted in Undefeated. Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some cleanup in our articles. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated our article on Melissa Newman to mention that there is another one. We probably should have articles on both, with the middle name used to differentiate between them. The one who isn't Paul Newman's daughter appears to be the more prolific actress, yet our article is on the less prolific one. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the Screen Actor's Guild require that all actors have unique names ? StuRat (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how they could. Can people be forced to change their real names just because some existing member of the Guild happens to be using the same name, which could well be a stage name in any event? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Forced? No. Denied screen credit? Certainly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By what authority? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably by contractually agreeing to abide by the SAG's rules. Obviously there have been a number of actors with duplicate names who weren't also Sr. and Jr. However, conflict with anything resembling a well-established actor is to be avoided. Examples: James Stewart changed his name to Stewart Granger because there was already a famous James Stewart; Michael Fox adopted the middle initial J. to distinguish himself from a previous actor named Michael Fox; Tom Conway renamed himself to Tim Conway because there had been another actor named Tom Conway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Googling it, a comment on this thread reminded me that David Tennant commented in a Top Gear interview that he had to change his name because there was already a David McDonald. This is the interview. He says it's the actors' union Equity that lays down that rule. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid rule, if you ask me. Record labels don't enforce this bullshit on musicians, there's two drummers by the name of Roger Taylor (Queen and Duran Duran), and Evanescence now even has two members with the name of Will Hunt. If two professional musicians sharing the same name isn't a problem in the music industry, then why is it in Hollywood? What happens if a new actor has the same name as a very famous musician, will SAG force them to change it as well? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason, as mentioned in our Stage name article, is that an actor doesn't want their name to evoke another performer's name. The actor wants to promote himself when he is mentioned in the press or in the credits, not promote some other guy with the same name. I was interested that this SAG page says, after noting that "SAG makes every effort to avoid enrolling members with the same name or with very similar names", that they ask you for 3 alternate name choices when you sign up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So then, how did Paul Newman's daughter get by this rule ? Was Paul able to exert enough influence to give his daughter a pass and allow her to keep her name ? StuRat (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Paul Newman and Melissa Newman are different names. When they say "...members with the same name..." they don't just mean surname. Otherwise the Sheens would have had the same problem. Dismas|^(talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the rest of this thread... Paul's daughter was also named Melissa, despite there being another actress named Melissa Newman. Matt Deres (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I had and I screwed up. Sorry. Dismas|^(talk) 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If record labels don't force musicians to change their names, it's probably because it is the band's name that is the important one. Alabama 3, for example, is known as A3 in the US because of the possibility of confusion with the band "Alabama". Matt Deres (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you got a point there. I know that two bands legally cannot perform under the same name. But what about two solo artists with the same first and last name? Has there ever been such case? If either of them refused to change it, then what would happen? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that two bands legally cannot perform under the same name. - What's your citation for that statement? If I start a band and call it "Morpohologised Vegetables" and perform in my local town, what's to prevent some other band in some other part of the country, or some other country, from having exactly the same name? Assuming they could prove they thought of it independently and had never heard of my band, that is. - Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See trademark. In some cases the right of publicity is also implicated. There are many examples. "They thought of it independently and had never heard of the other band" is irrelevant, though geographical location of sales and, possibly, genre might figure into it. 63.17.69.4 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, be that as it may, there have been well known bands with the same name, sometimes working at the same time. See The Heartbreakers (two bands independently led by Johnny Thunders and Tom Petty), or The Beat of which there were two (one U.S. and one U.K.). There are two bands named X: X (American band) and X (Australian band), each of which was a key founding band of the 1970's punk movements in their respective countries. --Jayron32 14:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Engelbert Humperdink comes to mind as two solo artists with the same name, although I believe it is by design rather than co-incidence. Also they were not in the same era, the second one, real name Arnold George Dorsey, named himself after the first. Zunaid 08:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do producers have any incentive to inflate film budgets?

The film Troy (film) had elaborate life-sized sets built in Malta and Mexico at great expense. Yet the same visual appearance could have been obtained by building models with some electronic jiggery pokery to put the actors in them, and the audience would be have been none the wiser. Do producers have an incentive to make the budget as big as possible? For example is any of their income paid by the studio in proportion to the budget size? 92.29.150.112 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on filmmaking, but I am interested in giving my opinion anyways. For starters, a CGI generated set always looks fake, so yes the audience would have been the wiser. As for the producers' salary, I don't know if their paycheck is negotiated before filming takes place like the actors, but probably depending on the producer, if it's a big name like Jerry Bruckheimer, then I would probably assume they may get a percentage in the film's profits. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just looked up Film budgeting, and here's what it says for producers: "Film producers and executive producers are often well-paid, with a top producer earning a seven-figure salary upfront as well as bonuses and a share of the profits. (Often a producer will be given 40 percent of the net profits). For Spider-Man, producer Laura Ziskin is estimated to have been paid over $30 million." 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The original poster's idea that the producer wants a bigger-budget movie in order to be paid more is a bit misleading. It's sort of true that the producer might get paid more if the movie's budget were US$1 million bigger, but if the budget is US$1 million bigger, the movie is a little less likely to get greenlit, and the studios haggle over the budget all the time. An expensive, extraneous scene, or an expensive scene that could be produced more cheaply (perhaps via CGI, or by shooting it in California rather than in Malta) is going to be monitored and modified or cut. As 24 says earlier, realism is important to everyone involved on most productions, and good CGI is still pretty expensive, so the Malta choice must have been deemed worthwhile on the basis of quality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the makers of 'Troy' wanted to build Troy! If you could, you would wouldn't you? Juliankaufman (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the popularity of real or simulated studio backlots as tourist attractions, that could be some incentive for constructing a real set. The movie set for the 1960 film The Alamo was kept around until just last year as Alamo Village. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See Cecil B. DeMille's films, and Cleopatra, which almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is what you meant, but studios often pay out to investors, actors, directors, etc. a proportion of the film's profit. Profit being income minus costs there is incentive to inflate the film's costs, especially if you can manage to include something unconnected that the studio was going to pay for as part of the film's costs. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ice Hockey

Reading the article on penalties raised a question about the netminder. It seems that the rules don't like him to leave his crease. For example, there is a penalty called Goaltender Leaving Crease: "A goaltender may not leave the vicinity of his crease during an altercation. A minor penalty will be assessed if the goaltender does so. If the altercation is in the vicinity of his crease the referee should direct the goaltender to a neutral area and the goaltender will not receive a penalty for leaving the vicinity of his crease." In the Illegal Equipment penalty description it says "..goalkeepers may not go to the bench but must have a stick carried out to them." Why do the rules force a goaltender to stay in his crease, even when a fight is going on? This seems strange, since a goaltender can be pulled and a sixth skater can replace him. •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the pertinent qualification is "during an altercation". They probably don't want the goalie to get involved (see Ron Hextall#Philadelphia years). Not that different from being penalized for leaving the bench. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the basis of this may be that if a goalie were to get involved in a fight, it would be really unfair due to the amount of padding goalies wear. Aaronite (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That could be part of it, but I think in general it's that the goalie is a special position on the team and the rules are different for him. (Note: If my knowledge of rules is out of date, feel free to jump in and fix.) For one thing, the goalie is never sent to the penalty box. If the goalie draws a penalty, a regular player will be sent to the box for the required time. A goalie could draw a 2-minute minor for a typical rules infraction such as delay of game or roughing or something like that. If a goalie gets penalized for fighting, it's a 5-minute infraction. And if he's penalized twice, he's done for the game - dismissed, and another goalie is brought in. That situation rarely occurs, and explicitly keeping goalies out of fights is probably intended to make the chance of a goalie ejection even less likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Regarding the stick, typically the only time the goalie goes to the bench is when there's a time-out or when he's being pulled for a sixth attacker. The goalie is also not allowed to participate in play past the red line. Those rules lessen the chance of turning the game into a farce by having the goalie way out of position - because when a player (including the goalie) breaks or loses a stick, play continues until the next time-out is called (e.g. for offsides or icing or a penalty). During a time-out, I'm sure the goalie could go to the bench to get a replacement stick. But not while play is on - a teammate would have to bring him a new stick. Regular players, of course, can stop by the bench and get a new stick while play continues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the NHL (but not international play) they have actually greatly limited goalie movement, besides the rule noted above about goalies leaving the crease to participate in fights; they also can no longer play the puck outside of a predefined area (I believe this is basically the crease and the area behind the net). This was specifically done to open up play; under the old NHL rules (still in effect internationally), the goalie could play the puck anywhere; they would often come far out of the crease to pick up an uncontested puck, and this would prevent the attacking team from scrambling to get said puck; if they did, the goalie would just scoop up the puck, retreat to the crease, and cover up. Now goalies can't come out of their area to play a puck, which means that the attacking team has more scoring opportunities. --Jayron32 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I recall in less recent times in the NHL where a goalie would be all over the place in the defensive zone, and sometimes it would come back to haunt him if he came out to play the puck some distance from the goal, if an opponent took it from him and skated in on an empty net. They also restricted delaying tactics by the goalies. I recall times when things might be getting hot-and-heavy, and the goalie might purposely whack the puck up into the seats to force a stoppage of play. I think they call delay of game for that kind of thing now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They call a delay-of-game penalty if anyone does it, purposely or not, it's kind of dumb. Also, the defined area is sort of a trapezoidal shape behind the net, there are lines painted on the ice for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the old days, there were lots of stalling tactics that have been curbed by these rules and help the game to move along. Hockey has constantly tinkered with the fine points of its rules. In the early days, you couldn't pass across your own blue line. The game then was like soccer with sticks. It's a bit faster-paced now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys (and girls?). So the netminder can't leave his crease during a fight because if he were to get involved in the fight then he would have an unfair advantage due to all of his pads? That sounds plausible on the face of it. But I remember watching a game where an attacking player started to fight with the netminder. He totally kicked the netminders ass! The netminder had such limited movement that he was a sitting duck. The netminder could only just raise his arms above shoulder level to defend himself; never mind getting enough momentum to land any substantial blows. Secondly, are we saying that the netminder can't go to the bench to retrieve a stick so that he can't play the puck further up the ice? But I thought he could only play the puck in his crease and behind the goal line anyway (I'm English so we don't have the trapezoidal zone behind the net like in the NHL). So if he went for a stick and played the puck near the centre line then it'd be a penalty. If he left an open goal and the other team scored then he would look like an idiot. But to legislate against the netminder being brain-dead seems a bit strong. There must be another reason. •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for this on google, a little bit, and couldn't find anything on the rationale. Somehow my misty memory is telling me that this might have to do with Patrick Roy and other goalies who were getting a little too aggressive, coupled with the NHL's desire to contain fisticuffs - for example, the relatively recent rule that there's a lengthy penalty for the third player to enter into a fight. That tends to keep fights confined to two players, whom the refs let slug it out for awhile until they're tired, and then step in and send the both of them off for 5-minute majors. And it's fairly clear they don't want the goalies to be anything but goalies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But all of the penalties to stop fighting are already in place. Why have an extra set to keep netminders out of it? There is some reason for the netminders' movements to be restricted and I don't think that it's to keep them out of fights: they are soft targets if anything. They're so big, slow, round and heavy that they wouldn't stand a chance against a normal player. There just doesn't seem to be any logic. Besides that, thee rule about not being able to go and get a new stick when theirs has broken has nothing to do with fights: it's about limiting movement. WHY? •• Fly by Night (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of a mystery. Maybe you'll have better luck googling the subject than I did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Google's a lottery. That's why I put the question here: hoping that people in the know might share their knowledge. If you don't know then that's fair enough. •• Fly by Night (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This time I googled [nhl rules history] and one of the items that came up[3] includes a lengthy history of the rules, but does not explain why the lines around the goal were changed (other than obviously to increase the scoring) and does not mention this specific goalie situation at all. I added [goaltender] to the search, and came up with this blog referencing Marty Brodeur,[4] which contains an embedded snide comment which might nonetheless provide an additional clue: "brodeur handling the puck was not the reason for the trapezoid rule... the nhl's rules on goaltenders leaving the crease and getting hit/checked were vague and uneven, hence the rule." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's starting to make more sense. After all, if you make contact with the netminder without trying to get out of the way they you get an interference penalty. Maybe the rules aren't too cohesive and lead to the anomaly that checking the netminder anywhere on the ice would lead to an interference call? •• Fly by Night (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

March 18

Question about Jimmy Wales

How much money does Jimmy Wales make from his speaking engagements and does he donate the proceeds back to Wikipedia? Ferdy789 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You could ask him: User talk:Jimbo Wales is his talk page, and he does check in from time to time. --Jayron32 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did ask, it was removed by an admin as impertinent. Ferdy789 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... it is kind of a nosy question. However, if he has e-mail activated, you could send him an e-mail, and get back to us on what he had to say in response to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a bad form to ask how much people make, whether in person or through a user talk page. --Kvasir (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Even when that money is primarily made because of Jimbo's founder status of Wikipedia. Surely if he makes this money directly from his Wikipedia connection it is wholly pertinent and reasonable to ask how much, and whether he donates any of it back to the project. Ferdy789 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You could always ask Jimbo via e-mail. Or you could ask the admin why he thinks it's impertinent, and make your case as you're doing here. Or, ask the admin to come here and explain his actions. Does Wales have a "regular job", or does all of his income come from wikipedia and its auxiliaries? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to labeling it "impertinent", Rodhullandemu said (paradoxically enough) that it was "already answered elsewhere." So maybe you need to ask the admin "Where?" because i'm not seeing it offhand.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia publish any sort of annual report? The remuneration of its directors would be something that would normally appear in such a publication. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does (it's all on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org ). However, as with any other charity, the directors don't receive any renumerations beyond their actual expenses (which Jimmy doesn't claim anyway). Jimmy's income from Wikipedia comes from speaking engagements and product endorsements, not directly from the Foundation. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has made a total of five edits, all today, and all focused on this question, so I will add another question: How should Jimmy Wales provide an income for himself given that he works full time promoting Wikimedia Foundation projects? Suggestions that he should also donate fees earned when engaged as a speaker are absurd. Re the question on a report: yes, of course, see the above link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2007 990 form (page 29), Jimbo is payed nothing as a board member of Wikimedia foundation. I too am curious as to where the money he makes from speaking engagements is listed, as asserted by Johnuniq and user:Rodhullandemu, because I don't see anything in the annual report or financial statements. Buddy431 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It will be listed on his personal tax return, I'm sure, but that isn't public. The Foundation isn't involved (other than when he donates some of the fees to it). --Tango (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy doesn't work on Wikipedia stuff full-time (although it seems to be quite a lot of time). He also spends time on Wikia, his commercial project. --Tango (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The question was re-asked, and responded to, at Jimbo's talk page. I've copied the exchange below.

How much money do you make from your speaking engagements and do you donate the proceeds back to Wikipedia? Ferdy789 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't answer questions about my personal finances. I do donate significant amounts of time and expenses to the Foundation - for example, I never get reimbursed for unpaid travel that I do on behalf of the Foundation, not even to board meetings. I pay my own flights and hotels. When I go to New York to meet with potential donors - as I did recently - I fly at my own expense, I pay for my own hotel, etc. An alternative approach, which I have considered but rejected for a number of reasons, would be for me to file my expenses with the Foundation and then when they reimburse me, simply donate that money back. The main reason not to do this is that it would be a useless accounting exercise, and it's been much simpler for me to simply make sure that no money ever flows from the Foundation to me. In addition to my fund-raising activities on behalf of the Foundation - activities which bring in many times my personal income from all activities in my life, I also have at times directed revenue from things that I am doing into the Foundation. I will continue to support the Foundation with my money and time as much as I can. I will also make no apologies for having a successful career outside the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When the heck do you find time to sleep?Thelmadatter (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This question made me laugh out loud, thank you. The reason is that just after I posted the answer above, I took a nap. I'm in London and a bit jetlagged. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we won't find out how much he makes from speaking engagements (at least from him, and I doubt that that information is available elsewhere) Buddy431 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm puzzled as to why the OP thinks it's a "wholly pertinent and reasonable question" for us to consider. The only reasonable question for Wikipedia donors is whether any assets they have donated flow directly from WMF's coffers to those of Mr Wales, reducing the value of the gift. Since he and the Foundation's records both agree that they don't, then whatever he earns by his own efforts elsewhere is between him and his accountant. His public profile as a WMF founder is irrelevant unless you think one should be forbidden to benefit from anything by association, in which case past presidents of the USA or retired British prime ministers should be forced to donate their public speaking income to repay the National Debt. Donating a blanket to the Dogs' Home does not give you a right to pry into the private lives of the volunteers there, provided they can demonstrate that they haven't taken your gift home for their granny. Karenjc 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unless the OP is himself donating money to the Foundation, it's mostly none of his business. It might be the IRS's business, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This is discouraging. The answers are well-known. Just the facts: Jimmy Wales's currently asking price for a speaking engagement is "50.0k to 75.0k". He is also represented by the "Harry Walker Agency", which is a speaker's agency which deals in high-priced clients. He keeps all the money, having stated on the matter "I have for a very long time now stressed to everyone who invites me to speak that they are inviting me in my personal capacity". His appearances for Wikipedia are also often used to promote his for-profit venture capital funded start-up Wikia, characterized in Trader Monthly (not me!) as "... his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it.". I recommend my article "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Jimmy Wales says", which collects all this information in a reliable source. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Where "50.0k to 75.0k" means 50 000 to 75 000 USD. That's pretty sweet, actually; I wish I could pull in that type of money by giving a speech. Does anyone have a list of the speaking engagements that Mr. Wales has had in, say, the last three years? Buddy431 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: Was Marylin Manson Named Priest of the Satanic Church by Anton LaVey?

Was Marylin Manson Named Priest of the Satanic Church by Anton LaVey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanket hogger (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This article should be of your interest: [6]: "Over the years, LaVey attracted a number of notable allies and associates, including celebrities such as Jayne Mansfield, Sammy Davis Jr., King Diamond, Robert Fuest, Jacques Vallee, Marc Almond, Aime Michel, Boyd Rice, and Marilyn Manson, who is an honorary reverend for the Church of Satan."
And also [7]: "Since then, they've released three CDs- Portrait Of An American Family, Smells Like Children, and their latest dark vision, Antichrist Superstar. It should come as no surprise that Mr. Manson is a reverend in the Church of Satan appointed by Anton LaVey himself." --151.51.62.111 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that the above links are to a wiki about Marilyn Manson, and are not a WP:RELIABLE source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Judas Priest - Some Heads Are Gonna Roll

What exactly is this song about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.40.117 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Having googled the lyrics, it seems to me that it's about people who can't handle the power they've got and misuse it. Someone obviously upset the man who wrote it! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Revolution. Juliankaufman (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Refrain vs. chorus - what about Love at First Sight?

Refrain#In popular music states that "a refrain musically and lyrically resolves a verse and therefore ends it, whereas a chorus begins a distinctively new music section of at least eight bars." Now trying to attribute this distinction to a few songs, I face a problem with Love at First Sight (Youtube, Lyrics). From my point of view, if we want to apply these categories, it has both a long 4-line refrain (italic) and a short 3-line chorus (bold).

---

Thought that I was going crazy

Just having one those days yeah

Didn't know what to do

Then there was you

And everything went from wrong to right

And the stars came out to fill up the sky

The music you were playing really blew my mind

It was love at first sight

Cause

Baby when I heard you

For the first time I knew

We were meant to be as one...

---

Right or wrong? --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction that I hadn't consciously thought of, but it makes sense. I always thought a chorus and a refrain were the same thing. But when the "chorus" varies from verse to verse, then it probably doesn't count as a "chorus". The song America the Beautiful comes to mind as another example as having a "refrain" instead of a "chorus". By contrast, "The Yankee Doodle Boy" has 2 verses and a chorus that's identical for both verses. Furthermore, the "chorus" part of an old song is often the part that's remembered by everyone, because it's the part that's "universally" applicable, as opposed to the verse which tends to be very specific to a particular context. Another example, then, would be "Take Me Out to the Ball Game", whose verses are very specific to one circumstance, and whose chorus is much more general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I realize that doesn't really answer your question, so let me pose this followup to the music experts: Is there any "rule" that says you can't have both a refrain and a chorus in the same song? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I know; I think in those situations, the term "prechorus" is sometimes used instead of "refrain", but there are many different variations on song structure. In fact, the article we have there treats the chorus and refrain as synonyms, which would indicate that in popular music there is no distinction between the two terms. --Jayron32 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Which accounts for my own confusion on the matter. It starts to get into technicalities, like the way people misuse the term "font". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

movie

what was the movie called about armenian genocide i think it sounded like syndome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The only one I know about is Atom Egoyan's Ararat. And, yes, I realize that the film's title sounds nothing like "syndrome" (or "syndome", for that matter). Bielle (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Armenian Genocide article has a films section, although none of them look like "syndrome". Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the pathological extremes to which the Turkish government has gone to deny the genocide (up to arresting anyone who mentions it) could be called a "syndrome" ? StuRat (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

song

whats the song in this http://www.mmamania.com/2010/3/17/1377338/miguel-torres-plastic-surgery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's "One Man Army" by The Prodigy & Tom Morello (see Spawn). I'm not sure though because your link plays the music in a very chopped up fashion on my computer. Difficult to listen to. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The comic of the man from nowhere

I am trying to track down a webcomic I read some time ago. The plot was similar to that of Brian Wood's The Tourist; a stranger comes to town who is not what he seems. He is on the run, posing as a painter and has moved into a house in a quiet neighbourhood. He has left his job after becoming embroiled in a scam his boss was trying to pull; the opening episodes are of him in an airport on the phone to the boss who is very angry that the man has inadvertently made off with his money. The artwork reminded me of A Lesson is Learned But the Damage is Irreversible. There are only a few dozen episodes I would say. I may have found it through WarrenEllis.com but I tried searching there earlier and came up with nothing. Any ideas?  Skomorokh  21:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cole For Mayor

[8] Was this ad put on television? Or just on the website? (I need a citation, if possible.) Thanks, —C Teng^(talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

March 19

A sports competition

Please help me find a season of a sports league, tournament or competition that matches the following criteria:

• It may be a tournament of any kind of individual or team sport;
• It may be an international tournament or may include contestants or teams from one country only;
• It is not the only ever season of that tournament, i.e. there has been at least one more season of the same competition (e.g. the 2009–10 Premier League satisfies this, because there have been 2008–09 Premier League, 2007–08 Premier League, etc);
• (most importantly) It spans over a period of more than two calendar years (e.g. the 2006 IAAF World Cup and the 2006 Formula One season were entirely held in 2006; the 2008–09 UEFA Champions League and the 2008–09 NHL season were held in both 2008 and 2009; none of them satisfy this because I need a season including parts of at least three calendar years);
• The period specified above does not include qualification or preliminary tournaments (e.g. the 2010 FIFA World Cup is not what I need even though the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification was held in 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the tournament itself will be held in 2010).

Thank you in advance. --Магьосник (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From what you've written, it seems the critical point is that the league has spanned 3 years. That'd be 367 days long at a minimum, which is an awfully long time. Has someone told you that such a league definitely exists? Or are you just fishing about? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not fishing about. I continued my searching after posting the question here and I think I found what I needed. Here's what I found: 2008-2010 European Nations Cup First Division, 2006-2008 European Nations Cup First Division, 2004-2006 European Nations Cup First Division. This should mean that the question is resolved, but should you find something else, I shall highly appreciate it. --Магьосник (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what prompted the question. In any case, don't rule out the world championships of 43-Man Squamish, which might drag out a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A single game of Hunt the Wocket can go on for years.DuncanHill (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Music - radio theme tune

Cn anyone tell me what the theme music for Julie Enfield Investigates (currently being repeated on BBC7) is? It was also used as the theme for the BBC radio adaptation of Rogue Male with Michael Jayston. I've got a feeling it might be by Philip Glass. DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Façades. meltBanana 04:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it - many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fess Parker - Awards

I am currently updating Fess Parkers' article. It appears he never won any Emmys or similar awards.
The only source I have found so far is this LA Times article, HERE.
Does anyone have any information/ sources about any awards he or his TV shows etc. may have received?
Even awards for his wines would be notable. Any help appreciated! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Horror movie - what was the name of it?

I'm asking for movie name. Lady with her child(a little boy or a girl) board an airplane. Somewhere during the flight child disappear. She looks everywhere on the plane but could not find him. Investigation started after landing but there was no trace of any child board the airplane with her... Thank you in advance!:) Vitall (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it Flightplan starring Jodie Foster? --Anonymous, 07:28 UTC, March 19, 2010.

Yes, thank you! Vitall (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Porn films

I'm curious, but not curious enough to do Original Research: do porn films bother much with plot, dialogue and generally making sense, or do they just do enough of those things to link together the sex scenes? What proportion of a porn film is typically, ummm... action? Is there much work for screenwriters? --Hence Piano (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Like any category of entertainment, there are going to be exceptions to any generalizations we make; but, in general, no, porn films don't bother much with plot, dialogue, or generally making sense. The prominent exceptions are from the "porn chic" era in the 1970s, with films like Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door. Aside from those, no, there's not a lot of screenwriting. I believe the amount of "plot, dialogue, and generally making sense" has gotten even smaller, in the aggregate, since the 1990s, when amateur porn started becoming a larger and larger segment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, i tend to think there is a recent return to appreciate plots and stories in the realm of porn. This is reflected in 21st century titles like Pirates and gay series Wet Palms that have story lines. They tend to be highend productions (expensive), however, in this day of freely available internet porn. Check out AVN Awards, which celebrate excellence in Adult film-making which includes technical categories like "Best Screenplay". You'd best check out the website linked at the bottom, our article obviously doesn't list all past awards. From there, you can check out which studios produce titles that feature storylines. --Kvasir (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect (but admit I have no firm evidence of this) that the proportion of all porn consumed comprising feature-length films has gone down a bit since the advent of the Internet. Among feature-length films however, there is a distinction between American films (typically featuring at least superficial plots) and European ones (which often are more cinema verité, so to speak). Such European films often feature actors from a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds, typically making dialogue impossible. There are of course many exceptions. Gabbe (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

gargling in musical

I was looking through the IMDB at On the Town. When I learned one of the keywords was 'gargling', I wondered if anyone gargled in one of the songs or while their lines were being said. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Impactful Movie from childhood

I've been searching the web to find out the name of a movie from my past. It was aired on television in the late 60's early 70's because I remember watching it several times in my living room when I was a child (born 1966). I believe it was in black and white and my guess is that it was made in the 1940's. The movie revolved around the relationship of two young children (I'd say no more than age 12 no less than age 7). I believe it was a boy and a girl. I don't remember how they became aquainted in the movie but they were from families of different religious backgrounds. I'm guessing (at the age I was at the time I didn't have much of a context for various religions)that the boy was Catholic/Christian and the girl was maybe Jewish. They were under the impression that they should not attend each others churches but they were curious so they each did sneak in to a service of the others. My memory goes blank except that I remember that they were in a canoe type boat floating down the current of a deep creek. The girl stands up in the boat for some reason and is knocked unconcious by a tree limb. I can't remember if the girl becomes very sick (maybe pneumonia or something from getting wet) and/or dies. But, I remember the boy blames himself deeply because he thinks they angered God and God is punishing them because they snuck into each other's religious service. I remember watching on television similar religious themed movies in my elementary school years such as Song of Bernadette (1943) and Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima (1952) which were earlier theatrical releases. Any information appreciated!