Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:55, 14 August 2014

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/E

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.

August 8

Prohibition of recording devices in casinos

What is the reason given for the existence of laws or policies restricting the use of recording devices (such as cameras and even Google Glass) in many casinos? I'm asking this because I once went to a hotel which had a casino at the first floor (but not to gamble!), and there was a notice that said that photography was prohibited in gambling areas. Why do casinos have such policies? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, such bans are in place to help prevent cheating. Images or audio could be transmitted to give a player an unfair advantage. Imagine if a player and his accomplice enter a casino both wearing Google Glasses. While the player is playing poker, his accomplice could go around the table and secretly take pictures of all the opponents' hands, and quickly send them to his friend. The use of many of the other recording devices could be used in a similar fashion, in one form or another. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poker is just one game. This could be done with Blackjack as well. And with that game it would be easier to count the cards if you had many people watching through a feed from Google Glass. Recording devices are a veritable Pandora's Box of problems for a casino. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) One possibility is that some of their patrons might not want it known that they're there, e.g. the accountant embezzling from her employer to gamble, the fugitive wanted by the FBI, the person who called in "sick". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording devices can also be used to record movements and routines of security and employees to find and exploit security flaws for theft. --Jayron32 03:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in a book (I think some popular science thing on statistics) about a case where someone in a casino managed to cheat at roulette by having a button in his shoe which he clicked whenever the ball passed a certain point, and a display somewhere (maybe his watch?) which gave him the number the ball would land on. Not totally accurate, but a lot better than 1/49. This would probably be relatively easy to do with a video camera and sufficient processing (e.g. Google glasses). MChesterMC (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My lack of gambling experience is going to show through here but I thought that betting was stopped once the ball was put into play. So how could anyone benefit from doing anything then? Dismas|^(talk) 08:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE - See Eudaemons. Tevildo (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to cover the betting question: no, bets can still be placed while the ball is rolling around the outside of the roulette wheel 'pit', until the croupier declares betting closed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling aside, they don't want you bootlegging Wayne Newton, Siegfried and Roy or whatever else counts for "entertainment". What happens in Vegas like clockwork stays in Vegas like clockwork. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

First video game where you can actually feel like you're touching something

I know that Moto-Cross (also known as Fonz) was the first video game to have haptic feedback, but you don't really feel like you're touching something; the motorcycle you sit on simply just happens to vibrate, that's all. But what was the first video game where you can feel like you're touching something? For example, there are games where you can feel bullets hit you when you wear a haptic vest.

So that's my question. What was the first video game where you can actually feel like you're touching something? Ebaillargeon20 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being absolutely blown away by touching the ~~left~~ right part of the cross and seeing small Mario walk across a TV screen all the way over there into a Goomba. It was plainly obvious that I held his life in my hands, and the fate of the Mushroom Kingdom. The slight spring of the B A button felt way more like I was touching a small jumping thing than buzzing in my palms felt like I was being shot by a cannon in later years, so I'm not just being figurative here.

As time went on, that feeling became less intense, but the feeling of the sharp controller corners in the soft parts of my thumbs is still there, if I think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:43, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a compositor whose name sounds like Cheshpesh

All I have to go on is that he composed harp music which Nicanor Zabaleta played. Zarnivop (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does List of compositions for harp help any? --Jayron32 17:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks. Nothing sounds remotely similar. Zarnivop (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Jorge Gomez Crespo, who seemed to write mainly for the guitar. Harpists often transcribe works written for other instruments, but I can't find any hits for Zabaleta recording anything by Crespo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After browsing through Zabaleta's discography at allmusic.com, I found no better candidate than Crespo (whom I didn't find there, and the odd, not even semi-fit of López-Chávarri will only be mentioned for the sake of the gamble). I think some context might help us help you, Zarnivop ... regarding the pronunciation ... where did you hear it (radio, concert, mentioned by somebody, memory from a long time ago, ...) and what language (and if English, what type of English) was it uttered in? Also, did you hear the piece too? Performed by Zabaleta, or by someone else, and how (recording, concert ...) ? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heard it on the radio while driving. I live in Israel, so the speaker native tongue is probably Hebrew. I had to put some attention to driving, so I missed most of the introduction, and may have got the name wrong or even mixed up. I do recall a music phrase, but it will be far beyond my modest playing skill to recreate it. Zarnivop (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those hints led me to another wild guess. Depending on how you roll your r's and hiss your ich-Laut: Albrechtsberger [1] ---Sluzzelin talk 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check both. Thanks! Zarnivop (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettable (2011 TV series)

Does anyone here watch that show? I'm trying to figure out what I missed on the "Stray Bullet" episode this past Sunday. Specifically, I'm trying to figure out the trail of possession of the murder weapon. I haven't found any online forums that might explain it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter Movie Year 2007

Since those Guys killed Ethiopian Archbishop, is it because Archbishop was Going to Yell at President for allowing (U.S.) Army to destroy a Group of Innocent People in Ethiopia?

Did United States President know that a Group of Innocent People got Destroyed in Ethiopia for No Reason? (50.173.3.162 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Shooter (2007 film) for our article. I've not seen the film, but our plot summary agrees with your assessment of the storyline. Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're saying that our Plot Summary agrees with my Assessment of Storyline, what do You mean? The stupid Plot Summary doesn't Specifically say if (U.S. President) was Unaware about Innocent People getting Killed in Ethiopia? (50.173.3.162 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

The film is a work of fiction based on the novel Point of Impact. If the movie doesn't specify what was in the mind of the U.S. President character, then it is open to interpretation. Any interpretation of a work of fiction could be considered valid; but the intended interpretation depends on the views and opinion of the original source's author (Stephen Hunter), the screenwriter (Jonathan Lemkin), and the film's producer, director, etc. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Examiner

Is it possible for a Medical Examiner to Prove that a Female was Automatically raped Against her Will?

Is it possible for a Medical Examiner to Prove that a Female was Automatically having (Rough but Consensual) sex? (50.173.3.162 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "Automatically" here? That a woman was having consensual sex with, or being raped by, a machine or a robot? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The level of consent might be estimated in reference to the cause of death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can't typically prove anything 100%, but certain bruising and tearing is an indication of rape, as it would be unlikely any woman would choose to put herself through that much pain (unless she had a history of masochistic behavior). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she hadn't a history, there's a first time for everything. May not have been looking for roughness, either, just a bit more than she'd expected, but still worth the trouble. Medical examiners can't determine intent, just facts about the body's condition. The human part's for police, prosecutors, friends, family, witnesses and the accused to figure out. And the victim/partner, if she's still alive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a weird question for the Entertainment Desk. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's here because most of us, including the OP, will only ever encounter medical examiners in TV shows and movies. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. The ones who literally see the crime through the eyes of the corpses they touch set the bar a bit high. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

One thing to note: medical examiners, and other forensic scientists do NOT prove anything, ever. The only thing they do is to say whether or not some bit of evidence is consistent with a particular claim. For example, the medical examiner can determine whether or not injuries are consistent with sexual assault. A hair analyst will determine whether a hair in evidence is consistent with a suspect's hair. A fingerprint analyst can say whether a print left at a crime scene is consistent with a suspect fingerprint. Even DNA analysts will only ever say that DNA evidence is consistent with a suspect's sample. They never prove (or even attempt to prove) anything. It's the lawyer's job to attempt to establish proof, in the minds of the jury. The analysts job is to analyze, not prove. --Jayron32 01:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered about the use of the word "consistent" in trials:

"The bloody fingerprint found on the victim's neck is consistent with the print of the accused".

Court appointed lawyer asks no further questions here, while rich guy's lawyer continues on...

"Consistent in what manner ?"

"Well, it was too smudged to read any of the ridges and do any meaningful comparison, but it did appear to be a human fingerprint, so, inasmuch as the accused is also human, it's consistent". StuRat (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, the word consistent has a very specific legal and technical definition, the burden of calling evidence consistent with a claim is different than claiming it cannot be eliminated. Basically, forensics experts make basically one of three statements on the nature of physical evidence. Evidence can be said to not match the suspect evidence (i.e. they can say "the print does not match the suspects print"). They can say that the evidence "does not eliminate the suspect", which is generally reserved for the sort of low-quality evidence you describe, that is the evidence contains nothing which contradicts the notion that it is connected to the suspect, but neither does it have anything to support it. Finally, they can say that the evidence is "consistent" with the suspect; that means there are definitive points of matching between the suspect's sample and the evidence sample, and there are simultaneously no points that eliminate the suspect as a match. Your example of "no meaningful comparison possible" would be reported exactly with that phrase, or possible "does not eliminate the suspect", to which any defense attorney who can find his own ass would ask "does that also mean it doesn't match the suspect" to which the expert would have to note the ambiguity of the evidence. I know this is OR, but I have intimate knowledge of someone in the business... --Jayron32 03:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're screwing a married lawyer, Jayron. Whoopee! Does your wife know about this affair? ... Oops, she does now. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

No, I'm screwing a married forensic scientist. Thankfully, she's married to me. --Jayron32 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what would happen if an "expert" did just what I said (assuming he got caught) ? Would he be imprisoned ? Banned for life from acting as an expert ? Even fined ? Or would he just get a slap on the wrist and go on doing the same thing, to make the Prosecutor who hires him happy ? StuRat (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

hm? --Jayron32 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope This isn't Offense. Since you People are Saying that It's impossible for [Police, doctors, & CSU] to Prove that Rape automatically occurred 100%, I believe You people but Please answer my Question at Bottom of this Screen? Whenever I watch TV, I listen to [Police, Doctors, CSU] who are Specifically saying, "Rape" & that causes Me to Believe that Rape occurred 100%. Although they're not Stupid, how come [Police, Doctors, CSU] don't Specifically say, "We're assuming that Rape occurred. If we ask the Suspect if He/She had Consensual Sex, then that Suspect might Lie about Consensual Sex." (50.173.3.162 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry, what makes you think they don't ask that? Britmax (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my Question was too Vague. I never Said that Cops should ask Suspect if He had Consensual Sex. I agree that Cops should Not ask Suspect if He had Consensual Sex.

On tv, I hear [Cops, Doctors, CSU] specifically saying, "Rape." It causes Me to Believe that They're 100% Positive that Victim was Raped.

On tv, are [Cops, Doctors, CSU] actually trying to say, "For any Victim, it's Impossible for Us to prove 100% that those Victims were Raped. For now, we have to Assume that the Victim was Raped."

On tv, how come [Cops, Doctors, CSU] don't Specifically say, "For any Victim, we have to Assume that the Victim was Raped."

My email's (redacted)(50.173.3.170 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Well, in private they get lazy, and those TV shows sometimes show what they might act like in private. However, when making public statements, they tend to be very careful, even to the point of calling the suspect a "person of interest". StuRat (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, TV shows are fiction, and CSI is about as accurate portrayal of the work of actual forensic scientists as Harry Potter is an accurate portrayal of actual British residential schools. --Jayron32 20:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty accurate about boarding schools for wizards though. DuncanHill (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, the circumstances make it almost certain. If a half-dressed body is found in a far-from-home field with multiple stab wounds, in addition to vaginal damage, it would take a pretty stupid detective to surmise she went to that field for corn after some rough consensual sex, then was killed in a pants robbery gone wrong. If there's semen, they can test it. If it's not from anyone she'd known, that's a huge clue. If the victim's very young or very old, that's an even bigger hint. If she was last seen with a known rapist, it might very well be rape. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, that's for lawyers to argue and juries to decide. It isn't the job of technical experts to make pronouncements of guilt or innocence or to prove things as true or false. All they do is decide if "a" is consistent with "b". --Jayron32 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not their real life job. I thought we were talking about TV now. There, anybody can play the "official" at the "We Interrupt This Program" press conference, to establish what "authorities" believe at that part of the story.

Or are we talking about when actual press conferences are televised on the real news, OP? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about TV, all bets are off. That's the idea behind fiction, someone makes it all up. And for anything someone makes up, than can, you know, make up whatever they want. That's how fiction works. --Jayron32 04:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still standard practices. Film and TV writers can write whatever they want, but that doesn't mean what they write will survive the assistant writers, focus groups and producers. Knowing this, many writers eventually save themselves the trouble and just go with the usual from the start. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

August 9

Video games or other entertainment forms that project pulses of air meant to simulate the feeling of solid objects

This is the Airborne Ultrasound Tactile Display:

youtube.com/watch?v=hSf2-jm0SsQ

The Airborne Ultrasound Tactile Display projects pulses of air. These pulses of air were meant to simulate the feeling of solid objects. Are there any video games or other entertainment forms that also directly project pulses of air meant to simulate the feeling of solid objects, or do they not exist yet? If they do exist, can you give me the names or titles of them? Ebaillargeon20 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air hockey? Indoor skydiving? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I missed the part about the "simulate the feeling of solid objects". Clarityfiend (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't there originally: the person asking should note that it is better to clarify the question with a further post than alter the question after it has been asked and a reply received.

I don't know if it's even close to whatever you're looking for (judging from this and the last post you're looking for some sort of game that lets you feel... something?), but the devices Tactical Haptics demonstrated at GDC this year really did what they claim (produce the effect of actually "feeling" the virtual world). It was uncanny. If I put that aside since there aren't any actual 'games' available for it at this point, racing games have the most common complex haptic feedback I know of, having supported force feedback wheels for some time, which provide resistance and "rumbling" both meant to imitate actually driving an automobile. And then there's the Novint Falcon, which is definitely a thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dress rehearsals

I have a question about "dress rehearsals" (if that's even the proper term). But, I have to start out with a preliminary question to insure that my premises are correct. So, I assume that dress rehearsals are typically held in the following three types of performances: (1) live theater; (2) television; and (3) film. Is my premise correct? By "dress rehearsal", I mean that the actors act out every little detail of the performance just as if it were the real performance. In other words, they use all correct props (not fake or "imaginary" props). And they perform all required actions (not just mimic or "fake" the actions). Here are a few examples of what I mean. If the actor has to eat a candy bar, he actually eats one in the dress rehearsal (whereas he just might go through the motions and fake the act of eating one, if it were a "regular" rehearsal). If they have to drink a glass of water, they actually do so. If they have to throw water in an actor's face, they actually throw it. If they have to rip up a piece of paper, they actually rip it. Stuff like that. I am almost 100% positive that this happens with live theater performances, but I am less sure about TV and film (since they are less concerned with "mistakes", as they can simply do as many re-takes as necessary to get the action correct in the final TV/film version). Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dress rehearsals are mainly used in live theater. The idea is to go through the whole play, in costume, in one go, just as if it was performed in front of a paying audience, in order to work out the last few kinks.Most rehearsals are not in costume (those are expensive and often fragile) or stage make-up, and scenes are done over and over until done right. Stage lighting is also used, which often is not the case in regular rehearsals. Indeed, to use one of your examples, if the performance calls for actually drinking a glass of water on stage, the actors will do it in a dress rehearsal. The idea is to be as close to an actual performance as possible (the company will sometimes invite an audience to be there, if it's important to take audience reaction into account, for example in pacing comedies to account for when the audience bursts into long and loud laughter). Films and television shows are often shot out of order, on different locales, etc. so you only have rehearsals for certain scenes. Scenes that include costly special effects never go through a full "dress rehearsal". The other difference is that the rehearsals are also filmed and may be used in the final version if they are better than the actual performance.--Xuxl (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero book/movie/comic

Is there any superhero movie or book where the hero is defeated in the end? By "defeated", I mean that he/she loses the fight, gets killed, or otherwise fails so completely that no reasonable person can deny the villain has won. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes are often killed in comic books and then brought back at some later point. See retcon for the term for this and other similar work-arounds to plot points. Two notable examples being when Superman was killed and the Dark Phoenix Saga in the X-Men comics. Batman has also had other characters fill in for him when he broke his back. Dismas|^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to change the question midway through, but I'm not looking for comics where the audience knows the hero will be brought back and "win" some time in the future. The hero only counts as "defeated" if there's no possibility of coming back to life or winning in the future. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a possibility of coming back to life. Sherlock Holmes was killed off but that didn't stop Arthur Conan Doyle from bringing him back from the dead. All it takes is a little bit of "when you saw him get killed, well, he didn't really die. You see, he miraculously survived and now..." --Jayron32 05:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the audience mostly believe that Holmes actually died and wouldn't be brought back? If so, that's good enough. I think there's a big difference between a periodic comic or TV series that's never going to kill off the superhero (or else the comic would have no purpose), and a book that has no financial reason to keep anyone alive. In the latter, death of the main character feels a lot more final and believable. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The audience believed that Homes had died (though they clamored for Conan Doyle to write more stories about him), and Conan Doyle intended for the "The Final Problem" to be the end of Holmes. His initial response to the audience's pressure (after eight years) was to publish The Hound of the Baskervilles, which was set before Holmes's death; only with "The Adventure of the Empty House" did Conan Doyle come up with the story about Holmes's survival of the Reichenbach Falls incident. (See Sherlock Holmes#"Great Hiatus".) Whether S.H. can be considered a superhero is a whole other question. Deor (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing writers of franchises do is to create a character as a persona adopted by different people: If the character dies, he's replaced by a new persona who takes on the mantle of the character. Dr. Who and Green Lantern are famous for doing this, but there's been multiple Robins, and there's some speculation that James Bond works this way as well. So, just another wrinkle in the fabric of how character continuity can be preserved even in the face of death. --Jayron32 17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thor ain't what she used to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious answer is Watchmen, in which the heroes uncover a plot to carry out an atrocity but fail to stop the villain from carrying it out. After the fact, they agree they can do nothing about it without making the situation worse - the one hero who does not agree is killed. And the villain achieves what he set out to do and is not punished except perhaps by his own conscience. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Which version of Rob Zombies Dragula are played in Jet Set Radio?

Video. Which version of the song are played in this video? Is it the original song or is it Dragula (Si Non Oscillas, Noli Tintinnare Mix)? Jet Set Radio says it's the remix while other sites like Gamefaq or the Jet Set Radio Wiki are saying it's the original version. --193.163.223.68 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Rob Zombie's official video for the original version of Dragula. You're allowed to listen to both and decide for yourself. --Jayron32 17:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC online 'Your pictures' contest alerts?

These are the most recent BBC online 'Your Pictures' winners.

Is there a way I can arrange to be informed by email about upcoming contest themes? I know that I could go to a page and get the information, but I usually forget, especially as I don't always notice the current results popping up on the main page. I can't find anything useful at the 'Contact the BBC' link .Hayttom 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

This page sets the themes for the next few weeks, but I didn't see any sort of theme notification email service. The page does say this: "If you have any questions then please email..." so you could send an email to that address and ask about it.Dreamahighway (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do, thanks very much! Hayttom 20:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

DJ Swezzle

Hi guys, I am wanting to make an article about a singer/songwriter called DJ Swezzle, but I don't know whether he is 'notable' or not. He has released several albums and has a wide range of songs on YouTube, but would Wikipedia rules consider DJ Swezzle notable? --Skiffle Vond (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is the relevant guideline. If he's not had anything in the charts or won any awards or major competitions, we're back to WP:GNG ("the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources"). If there are (say) magazine articles about him, he'll be OK - if not, merely releasing albums (that the critics haven't written about) isn't, I'm afraid, enough. Tevildo (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are magazine articles about him but my browser is limited. Could a Wikipedia user help me out by double checking whether DJ Swezzle is notable? --Skiffle Vond (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searches on Google and Highbeam don't find anything suggesting notability (or, in Highbeam's case, anything at all). This does not prove that DJ Swezzle is non-notable, but it does imply that showing notability would be quite difficult. John M Baker (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Manga download

There are numerous manga websites that have English translations of Kenji (Manga), but I would love to download the entire series to read offline. Does anyone know of a website that offers such a download? Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any legal means to do so. If you wish to take the extra-legal route, I leave that to you. Mingmingla (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a few extra-legal ways, and can't find whole sets. The best I can recommend is rightclicking and saving the images from one of the websites you've found (presuming they're like the ones I found). Tedious, I'll admit. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, August 12, 2014 (UTC)

You can expect to be visited by Officer Obie in the near future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freida Pinto

I was just talking about Slumdog Millionaire with a mate of mine, and we started talking about the older actress who plays Latika, and we couldn't remember her name, so I looked it up. I understand she was born in India, but her name sounds decidedly Italian. Her parents are Sylvia and Frederick. What are their nationalities? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinto "is a Portuguese surname, also existent in Spanish and Italian languages. Some Indians, especially people whose family originated from Portuguese Goa, also bear this name." It's also a very common name in Sri Lanka, along with Silva (and its variants), Perera (ditto), Fernando and some others. These come from Portuguese colonial influence, and to a lesser extent Spanish, but there's been little Italian involvement in South Asia afaik. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once met a Dravidian with the surname Carlos. "Portuguese ancestor?" "Portuguese priest." —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Portuguese India. Many native Indian people, especially those with Christian traditions, have Portuguese names. The Portuguese left a pretty big impact in some parts of India, especially the western coast, such places as Mangalore, Goa, and Kerala. See Goan Catholics and Mangalorean Catholics for some background. Besides Freida Pinto, other Indians with Portuguese names include Dinesh D'Souza and Leander Paes. --Jayron32 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Films: Shooting the Same Scene Multiple Times

I saw an episode of "The Simpsons" the other day where one of the characters says that directors like to shoot the same scene many times from different angles. Is that true of your "typical" Hollywood movie? I'd think they could just use multiple cameras and shoot the scene once, but I'm far from an expert on film making. OldTimeNESter (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actors aren't perfect. They make mistakes. So, taking the content of one shot and the reactions of other actors in another then editing them together may make for a better scene. Plus, multiple cameras all around the set may well show up in the shot. That's not good. Mingmingla (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a this very typical scene: two actors are sitting in a booth in a diner, eating and talking. In the final movie several different shots are intercut together:

a wide establishing shot, showing the booth and the adjacent parts of the diner
a narrower profile shot, showing both actors
a shot over actor A's shoulder, showing actor B in closeup; in some films this might be A's POV instead
similarly, the shot of A from B's side
and perhaps a shot up at a waitress taking an order, and a shot down from the waitress (or again, behind her) looking down at the table

Movie cameras are big, and so are lights, microphones, sound booms, and all the associated equipment and personnel. The placement of these needed for one shot would put them in view for the others. Often the set comes apart, so cameras can be inserted into places they couldn't go if it was a real diner. Sure, the cameras could all hang back and take long shots with longer lenses - but this doesn't give the intimacy that the director wants. Plus the lighting director will often want to re-light the scene for the different shots, to properly fill, key, and silhouette the shots. All of this is, as your question implies, tiresome and time consuming, and it means everything has do be done over and over so all the shots get done (often with lengthy breaks between setups, as all the stuff is moved around). And there's lots of work in continuity and editing, to take the tons of material that's produced and stitch it together into a coherent narrative. Such a single-camera setup is the standard for expensive productions with lots of time and money to get things looking just right all the time. It is much easier, faster, and usually cheaper to film, as you say, in a multiple-camera setup, where there's a camera for the wide shots and individual cameras for several actor's faces. This is how lots of soaps and sitcoms are filmed. But to avoid cameras and equipment showing up in shots, they have to do weird things with the space the action takes place in. Look at the apartments in Friends or The Big Bang Theory, and at how everyone sits around the table. The rooms are long and shallow (like a doll's house) and when people sit at tables they don't face one another - they're all arranged on one or two sides of the square, sitting beside or at a shallow angle to one another. Compare the diner scene in Michael Mann's Heat with a typical dinner conversation in The Big Bang Theory. Single camera, with multiple setups, gives the director much more flexibility and the ability to bring the viewer into the scene - but in addition to the costs in time and money, filming the same dialog many times makes for a challenge for the actors: they have to give the same performance, with the consistent expression and intensity, day after day, and often with the person to whom they're talking not being there (because there's a camera and a sound guy and a big light where they should be. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are also times when they want different versions of the same scene. An example is He Said, She Said, where we would see one version from the man's POV and one from the woman's. Not only did the angle change with each shoot, but the content was changed to match the recollection of each. There have also been cases where a scene is shown more than once, perhaps due to an unreliable narrator, such as seeing the murderer's false version first, then the real events later. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie's Angels spin-off ?

I saw an episode of CA that looks like a set-up for a spin-off. In it they work with another group of detectives which looks like a mirror image of CA. Barbara Stanwyck is their equivalent to Charlie, while 3 men (ex-athletes including a pole vaulter and horseback rider) are the equivalent of the Angles. So:

1) Did this spin-off ever happen ?

2) Do we have an article on it ?

Thanks, StuRat (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as #92 at List of Charlie's Angels episodes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That says it was never made into a spin-off, so I assume there's no article here on the aborted effort. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The Yeeeeeees? Man, Quagmire, etc.

Why do some cartoon characters, such as John (the gay man) and the "Yeeeeeeeees?" man on The Sumpsons, or Glenn Quagmire on Family Guy, have the pocket on the wrong side of their shirt? 24.130.24.40 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the images that I can find of Quagmire online have the pocket over his left breast which is where all my shirts (from various manufacturers) that have pockets have their pocket. The only images I saw that didn't were where he is drawn shirtless or by a fan. All the screenshots from the show had them on the left. Dismas|^(talk) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When I visited the Glenn Quagmire article a few months ago, the image showed the pocket over his right breast. 24.130.24.40 (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized there is a wrong side. My two "good" shirts confirm it. Which side are the pockets on Flanders, Mr. Burns and the other Leftorium shoppers? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

All the online images I find of John show him in one of two shirts which both have a pocket on the left breast. I can't find any other Simpson's character of note who wears a shirt with a pocket. Kent Brockman and Supernintendo Chalmers wear suits which have a breast pocket on the left. 87.115.180.61 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Quimby. When searching online, one really has to trust only screen grabs themselves, not graphics on some third-party site where the character has been abstracted. In those cases a designer may have mirrored character to fit their design, something the producers of the real show wouldn't do. 87.115.180.61 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch the show routinely. Is that "Yeeeeeeeees?" man a mimic of Frank Nelson? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually seen him on the show, but according to Wikipedia he is. In fact, Wikipedia says he's sometimes called "Frank Nelson type" in the script. When the minor characters had pictures, I distinctly remembered seeing the breast pocket on the right-hand side of his shirt. 24.130.24.40 (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

@@ Line 269: / Line 269: @@
 :I don't watch the show routinely. Is that "Yeeeeeeeees?" man a mimic of [[Frank Nelson (actor)|Frank Nelson]]? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
+::I've never actually seen him on the show, but according to Wikipedia he is. In fact, Wikipedia says he's sometimes called "Frank Nelson type" in the script. When the minor characters had pictures, I distinctly remembered seeing the breast pocket on the right-hand side of his shirt. [[Special:Contributions/24.130.24.40|24.130.24.40]] ([[User talk:24.130.24.40|talk]]) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 = August 14 =