Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

September 7

witch cartoon

I am looking for an american witch cartoon, it was not Tales from the cryptkeeper but still very simlar... and it was certainly not Sabrina or anything related to her, this cartoon / animated series / film / movie... had many witches or one or two, dressed like the classic ones. in black clothes.. it wasn't very old. and also featured girl or girls and normal kids too... some part of it featuring the witch/witches flying around on brooms. it was american, I'm certain about that. and the animation style was similar to the Tales of the Cryptkeeper so it may have been made in 1985-2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.205.162 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea, but you may have better luck if you can include more details. Was this an ongoing series or some kind of special? Do you recall anything about the plot or any character names? Really, if you can recall any kind of unique detail, Google can often help you out. Does this or anything on this list look familiar? Matt Deres (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are talking about The Witches. IMdB link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100944/ Is that right?.--ɱ (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lullaby of Broadway

Could someone tell me what year Bing Crosby released Lullaby of Broadway? The solo version, not the duet with Jolson. I've searched online, but I keep finding references to 1987, when The Radio Years compilations were released, but there should be some kind of date from the 1950s. If it wasn't officially released before 1987 (which seems unlikely, but possible), I'd like to know when it was recorded, even if you can only narrow down the year. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed here as appearing on a 7-disc set issued by Mosaic Records in 2009, entitled Bing Crosby: The Bing Crosby CBS Radio Recordings (1954-56). The accompanying text says that all the tracks in the set were recorded on tape for his daily CBS radio show between 1954-56 with Crosby accompanied by Buddy Cole's jazz quartet. No clue as to whether it was issued as a single back then, or whether it's the right recording, but it fits your timeframe. - Ka renjc 18:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from this site that he broadcast this song on the Ford Road Show on 15 September 1957. I don't know whether it had been a single before then, I suspect it was, so I shall keep looking. But it's a start. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC) He wasn't the vocalist on the 1935 recording with the Dorsey Brothers Band, that was Bob Eberly. Found that in "Breaking Records: 100 Years of Hits" via Google Books. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well done; an actual date! I also suspect that that's not the original date, though, if only because the Radio Recordings says they're from 1954-1956 and they include this tune. Allmusic is frustratingly hard to use, but it seems pretty clear that the earliest recorded release is the 1987 Radio Years. I suppose it's possible that it was just included in the 1954-1956 set as an extra and your 1957 date is correct. Thank you for the detective work; please let me know if you dig up anything further. Matt Deres (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woo I found this which gives a 1934 recording date! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that's a bit of a surprise to me; I had no idea he'd recorded it that early, though it's not a shock to me that there would be multiple versions. The 1:58 runtime is extremely short; his version from the CBS Radio Recordings is almost a minute longer at 2:45. Thank you again for your work! Matt Deres (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, Matt, because I used to have a couple of reference works which gave every song recorded and released up until the mid-1950s. I used to devour them eagerly when I was a teenager some 20 years later, and knew such a recording existed in the 1930s because of that. Several years and house moves later, I've lost them. I'm sure it would have been in one of those books! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Ballad of Jimi Hendrix - Was that tune based on one of his songs? (What was its title?)

The tune before the two-word lyric line could be based on one of Jimi's songs, is it? I'm not as familiar with Jimi's discography as I am with Michael Jackson's, and they sure did base their "ballad" of MJ off of one of his songs! So if their Ballad of Jimi was based on one of Jimi's, what was its title? Thanks. --2602:30A:2EE6:8600:46D:1BA7:F0D6:CE6F (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Purple Haze". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Howlers in cricket

What's a howler in cricket? Nirvana fallacy includes the following statement as an example of the fallacy:

The Umpire Decision Review System (in cricket) is a bad idea. It can't fix all howlers.

I went to howler, a disambiguation page, and most entries seemed completely irrelevant. Howler (error) was the exception, but it doesn't say anything about cricket at all. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howler (error) is the correct article. It's just a generic term to refer to an obvious mistake, not specific to cricket. For example, the "Hand of God" incident was a howler in association football. Tevildo (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the example cited, the word "howler" could be replaced for greater clarity by "poor decision", or "error". Decisions in cricket, such as to whether a player is given "out" or not, are made by the umpires. They are increasingly guided by new technology through the Umpire Decision Review System - but the review system itself is not designed to make decisions on their behalf. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you two and Bugs! Text changed to "It can't fix all missed calls". Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "howler" would be any decision so obviously wrong that the fans would howl in disgust. Like the almost-perfect-game a few years ago, where everyone in the park knew the 27th batter was out - except the umpire who made the "safe" call. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rub being that the umpire/referee's decision is by definition always right. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless overruled by a higher-ranking official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would fit better on WP:RDL, but we're already talking about it here, so...Does "howler" ever have this sense in American English? I can't remember ever hearing this usage before, and to me "howler" means a little kid who's screaming, or Magical objects in Harry Potter#Howler, or a howler monkey. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've ever heard this in American sports talk, but it's pretty clear what it means. Also there's the amusing languae oddity that "howler" and "bowler" don't rhyme (not in America, at least). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't rhyme in England either. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only time I see the word (apart from when it's literally describing something which is howling) is at Snopes, where they use it all the time to describe jokey emails, particularly well-traveled ones, so it seems to be a regional thing. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be books of "schoolboy howlers" of the "Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 40 foot cutter" ilk. I found some for you: here, here and here. Enjoy. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling scores

how good is an average score of 129 in bowling? i mean bowling, not the "bowling average" in cricket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.131.11 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-pin bowling, presumably? Well, it's the sort of score I usually get, so I imagine it's pretty dreadful. I'm sure there are official statistics available. (A cricket bowling average of 129 would be absolutely appalling, incidentally. Nobody would be selected (as a bowler) for any team at any level with that sort of performance). Tevildo (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling Shane Warne's figures were a bit like that in his first Test match, but the selectors persisted with him. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a bowling league for three years from ages 10-12, our average score was about 140. My grandmother had several trophies for games in the 290's, with two for 300 score games. She would have been in her 40's at the time. Nowadays playing bowling on the Wii I get about 120-130, while my 5 y/o nephew often scores around 180-200. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure 90s (?) Scifi B-movie

This has been driving me nuts for years: the movie is a vaguely Philip K. Dick-ian (but almost certainly *not* actually Philip K. Dick) science fiction story. It involves a man and woman living in a dytopian scenario where the majority of the population believe themselves to be in a normal, capitalist society. One way or another, the couple discover that they're being mind-controlled by broadcast towers to believe this, and that when they fall outside of that influence, their whole surroundings are actually grey and generic, with everyday objects represented by boxes with barcodes on them (for example, a box with "TV" and a barcode on). They make their way to a factory manufacturing these generic items, in the hope of turning off the mind control broadcasts and freeing their fellow citizens from their illusion.

Any ideas? Djkitsch (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of dystopian films for you to look through. I checked most of the ones from the 1990s, but didn't see anything like you're describing, but maybe somthing there will jog your memory. The list is quite long, though it is broken up into different general themes. Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that it's not an exhaustive list. Are you sure it was a full-length movie and not an episode from a science fiction show like The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone? Matt Deres (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Matt - the thing which reminded me of it recently was this post on Reddit and this one, too, which is an uncannily similar idea! Thanks to quite a bit of following links, I finally managed to dig it out - it's "They Live", and possibly the missing bit was aliens! With that bit of missing info, it was in fact on the list...! Djkitsch (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It starred Roddy Piper! How was this not a blockbuster!? /sarcasm Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it did open at number one, made 13 million on a 3 million budget, and is currently rated 84/76% at rotten tomatoes. Sounds good to me. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

"United" association football clubs

An awful lot of football/soccer clubs have the word "United" at the beginning of their name. Why? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "United means "joined together". Such clubs are usually, at some point in their history, an amalgamation of previously existing clubs. Britmax (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case in some places but not in Australia, where I am. Brand new clubs seem to choose the word as if it's fashionable or something. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, like any "logo" thing it becomes the thing to do. In my home town here in the UK the local league club changed its name to AFC Bournemouth, adopting the European continental style of having the AFC first. It actually played a part in the club's early 70's change of image. But "United" earned its status as a name of merged clubs, just as "Rangers", Rovers" and rarely "Nomads" was used for a club which took a while to find a fixed home ground. Britmax (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomads"? More likely to be "Wanderers". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but see Northern Nomads F.C., Anstey Nomads F.C., Oxford City Nomads F.C. and Connah's Quay Nomads FC. Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious and possibly correct answer for teams outside the UK is that they are trying to associate themselves, consciously or subconsciously, with successful English clubs like Manchester United - which acquired its name in 1902 having previously been known as Newton Heath, although curiously it wasn't formed by a merger of existing clubs, which one would perhaps have assumed from the name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why MLS's DC United did it, just as described by Ghmyrtle. Mingmingla (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions, chaps. The things you learn from a simple question, eh? And Wanderers, well yes. Britmax (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Soccer in North America does this quite a lot, and quite annoyingly. Real Salt Lake is the best/worst. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for a big (but messy) list, see Association football club names. Nanonic (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese film title

Can anyone help me to recall the title of the 2000s Japanese splatter/gore film, where several friends come to brothel, which turns out to be the supernatural one, where the vagina of one prostitute chops off the client's penis and another client tries to avoid erection, being watched by a man with sword? The films begins with the massacre of one previous brothel client. Thanks.93.174.25.12 (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought (how do you massacre a single person) was overtaken by a second thought, that in this context I'm not sure I want to know (!) Britmax (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horny House of Horror? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanx--93.174.25.12 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Name of film: monologue about male rape

Hello. I'm trying to recall the name of a film that I saw a scene from years ago in a film class. The scene involves three men in a locker room/shower/bath house and one of the men admits that he raped another boy in high school in a locker room. One of the men doesn't really react, but the third man seems pretty disturbed by the story. The guy tells the story in I believe one shot and the monologue is quite long. I also believe the actor was someone famous...it's an American film, 1995-2005. Thanks. 74.69.117.101 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of "Your Friends and Neighbors"? I never saw the movie, but see the fifth paragraph down at [1].Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! This is it. Thank you : ) 74.69.117.101 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-fi genre ?

I like science fiction, but only a specific type. I'll call it "hard sci-fi", by which I mean devoid of human drama. So many "sci-fi" stories just seem to use the sci-fi elements as a backdrop to play out some human drama, like a married couple bickering, someone trying desperately to escape their past, etc. A prime example is the Under the Dome series now on TV. So, is "hard sci-fi" a good term for what I want, where people just scientifically examine the alien artifact, etc., without all that other crap thrown in ? And are there some good movies or TV shows like that (old ones are fine)? StuRat (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally that is also what everyone else calls it, and we have an article, hard science fiction. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hard science fiction would seem to be what you are talking about. Here's the IMDB page for it [2]. Here's some links to hard scifi works that may be of interest to you: [3], [4], [5], and [6].Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard science fiction is more than what you just described – it's very important that everything in hard SF is plausible. There's very little deus ex machina in hard SF, and what technology we do see is not beyond the realms of possibility. Star Wars' hyperdrive systems, for example, wouldn't fit into a hard SF universe (even if a theoretical argument could be made for their plausibility, they are still a bit far-fetched and fantastical). It seems that a good example of a show that you'd enjoy is simply Star Trek – they do plenty of examining of alien artifacts and that sort of thing, but it's most certainly not hard SF. — Richard BB 09:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did like Star Trek when they were doing hard sci-fi, like say trying to figure out how to destroy the doomsday machine. I was less of a fan when it was about Kirk unzipping his boots for some green woman, or trying to teach us a moral lesson with half-white/half-black people. StuRat (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you, it's still not hard SF. Star Trek tries to make itself look a bit more "sciencey" by throwing around words like "tachyon" and "intrinsic field" and things like that. In actuality there's not a great deal of scientific validity for their technology and plots. — Richard BB 10:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want TV, Stargate SG-1 is a bit harder than Trek, though still not too hard. Like Trek, there's a lot of variability from episode to episode. TV and movies generally can't be too hard or else very few people would watch them. Staecker (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal conflict is the essence of drama.
Since a plot is the dramatization of goal-directed action, it has to be based on conflict; it may be one character’s inner conflict or a conflict of goals and values between two or more characters. Since goals are not achieved automatically, the dramatization of a purposeful pursuit has to include obstacles; it has to involve a clash, a struggle—an action struggle, but not a purely physical one. Since art is a concretization of values, there are not many errors as bad esthetically—or as dull—as fist fights, chases, escapes and other forms of physical action, divorced from any psychological conflict or intellectual value-meaning. Physical action, as such, is not a plot nor a substitute for a plot—as many bad writers attempt to make it, particularly in today’s television dramas. -Rand, Romantic Manifesto
If you just want speculative science, there are very good shows like Alien Planet, but even that resorts to anthropomorphization of the exploratory robots. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard science fiction emphasizes the technical accuracy or plausibility of its science, but does not necessarily avoid human drama. You probably have a better shot of relatively unemotional writing with hard science fiction, but emotion is not by any means considered a disqualifying element.

The original Star Trek was based on the science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s, when hard science fiction was predominant, so many Star Trek episodes are good examples of hard science fiction, although others have a more fantastic element. You might like some of the better-regarded science fiction movies from this period, such as Forbidden Planet. If you're interested in reading, you might like the writings of some of the prominent hard science fiction writers, such as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein. John M Baker (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primer is a film that springs immediately to mind when reading this discussion. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, if you don't mind reading then there are many books which fit this description. I do a lot of Sci-fi and Fantasy reading, and many of the SF books I read tend to be from the 50's (I actively seek out books from those genres between the timeframes of 1950-2000 usually, but the 50's SF books always seem to find me... ;)) and one thing I've noticed about 50's SF writing is it is quite like what you describe. Not to say all books from then are completely devoid of human drama, it's just that it is a lot easier to find examples where the focus is more on the "scenery" so to speak, or the "objects". I guess that's probably because back then space was pretty much completely a realm of fantasy to most people; and, upon reading an SF book, a reader would probably be a lot more interested at a starship crew flying around the galaxy and visiting alien worlds rather than the bickering that could go on between the crewmembers of said starship. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 03:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for books, then Larry Niven's "Known Space" series is full of interesting technology consequences. Even where there is human drama, this is generally a direct consequence of some future technology (controlled breeding, a light burning out on an automatic medication dispenser, longevity treatments, interaction with a world where an intelligent creature has evolved into every ecological niche). MChesterMC (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so far. I really do prefer TV shows or movies though, as reading too much causes me to have eye strain. I read one book, I forget the name but think it was by Clarke, where a huge alien space station, in the form of a cylinder with a smudge on it, entered our solar system, and was explored by astronauts, who found it had interesting 3-legged creatures aboard. As the alien space station approached our Sun, it "came to life". This is the type of thing I'm looking for. Was this book ever made into a TV show or movie ? Any others like it ? StuRat (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Rendezvous with Rama and its sequels. See that article's 'Adaptations' section (short answer - no). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. Now this brings up the Q of why such books don't make it to the TV or big screen. Is hard science really unpopular with those audiences, or does it somehow not translate well into that form ? StuRat (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Money. Hard Sci-fi could potentially cost in the hundreds of millions due to potential special effects costs, and these are financial risks studios are unlikely ever to take up. Human drama is the driver of most film and TV (and books for that matter), and the size of the audience who would prefer pure science is (relatively) small, not large enough to cover costs. This is why the History Channel shows Pawn Stars and alien investigations, TLC (the former Learning Channel) shows coupon clipping and little people, and Discovery has shows about mermaids. Because books are far cheaper to produce, that's where your likely to find the type you are looking for, I'm afriad. Mingmingla (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps CGI has the potential to bring the price down to where the niche audience would still be sufficient to make it profitable. After all, there are plenty of other TV shows and movies which only appeal to niche audiences. StuRat (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Egan is known for writing hard sci-fi (some say "ultra hard") and for having minimal human drama, or drama in general. Sometimes this makes for rather dry reading, but he has a knack for conceiving fascinating super-far-future and/or very alien civilizations. I just finished Incandescence (that page has minor spoilers, but not too bad) and quite liked it, even though I didn't fully grasp the "hard" concepts being explored. Somewhere I read it's like a class on orbital mechanics taught in an alien language. The alien civilization is interesting by itself (and has a kind of built-in "minimal drama" thing), as is the galaxy-spanning super-far-future civilization that works despite having no faster-than-light technology. Pfly (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "ultra hard" by Egan, Orthogonal (novel) is basically a dissertation on how relativity and quantum mechanics would behave in a finite toroidal universe with a Riemannian metric, complete with charts and diagrams on every other page, and how it would eventually bring about the doom of any large body in space. You get gently introduced to the concepts by reading as the alien scientists in the book rush through the discoveries themselves. Katie R (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, I just realized you'd prefer movies or TV over books. Hard sci-fi doesn't usually get made into movies or shows, at least without massively watering down the "hard" parts and adding "human drama". The best example of a hard sci-fi movie that comes to mind is 2001: A Space Odyssey (the only "human drama" I can think of involves HAL the computer), but I assume everyone has seen this movie already. I recently watched it again, having only seen it many years ago as a young teen. It stands the test of time very well. Pfly (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment (I keep thinking about this!). It's been a long time since I read it, but I greatly enjoyed Robert L. Forward's book Dragon's Egg. I've heard it is a bit of a classic among hard sci-fi fans. Our page says it is "regarded as a landmark in hard science fiction". I've read a lot of sci-fi since I read Dragon's Egg, but Incandescence was the first book I've found that approaches the "hard" appeal of Dragon's Egg. Pfly (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Coast to Coast and "clear channel"

The article Coast to Coast AM twice mentions "clear channel". The article links to Clear-channel station and then uses it again, seemingly in that context. But is Clear Channel Communications what is intended? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - it is just that Clear Channel owns many clear channel stations. The first station mentioned by name in the list isn't owned by them though. Rmhermen (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Record: longest/heaviest dog sled

It seems that on April 10, 1994 in Ilulissat/Greenland a dog sled with a capacity of about 100 persons was pulled by over 200 sled dogs. It was supposed to be a Guinness Record. TRUE/FALSE ?

I can not find confirmation of this event - however I have seen a picture of this sled. Does someone have access to the GBoR for 1994, 1995 or 1996 who could look up this event ("dog sled", there also should be longest race etc.) and supply me with the year and page reference? Is this the right place to ask this question? Thanx GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 13:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Ilulissat Tourist Nature company site claims, "On April 10, 1994 Ilulissat Tourist Nature attempted a record to get in the 'Guinness Book of Records'. The attempt was to make the longest dog sled in the world. The dog sled was 21.55 m in length and the handlebar 2.92 m in height. The weight was approx. 1,750 kg, and the passenger capacity was 103. It was pulled a distance of 110.9 m in 50 seconds by 260 dogs." Not sure how reliable it is, since this site claims the world record for "largest dog team ever to pull a load" was set in 1999 with a mere 230 dogs. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had found the Tourist site, too, but a listing in the GBoR would have confirmed it. Maybe it just was an attempt? I'd prefer not to show the picture if the statement can not be confirmed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Canadian said no one helps the United States?

In the early 1970s a spoken word recording was played on an adult contemporary radio station. A Canadian ranted about how the United States helps everyone else around the world, but who helps us? I later learned it was intended to be funny.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googled is for you! Gordon Sinclair 183.83.47.226 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Americans was written by Gordon Sinclair, and he and several other people made recordings of it. I've never heard that it was intended to be funny; it seems very sincere to me. John M Baker (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's the one. It sounds sincere to me too.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Physical location(s) of Avril Lavigne's music video - I'm With You

Greetings,

I'm looking at the music video of Avril Lavigne, performing her song "I'm With You". I'm just mighty curious as to where the video was filmed, mostly, though I suspect it was somewhere in Canada. I can't find the answer on Wikipedia or in the comments of the YouTube page.

Any help will be much appreciated. But I am guessing it's shot in her home town of Greater Napanee. I can't say that for sure, though.

Regards, anonymous197.87.64.99 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a shot of the Orpheum Theatre about a minute in and a band member on a bench. Google Maps shows that same theatre and bench at 842 Broadway, Los Angeles. Not sure if the whole video is in LA, but that scene is. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:03, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

All the street shots seem to be on Broadway. No clue about the interiors. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "response" in Indian cinema?

Articles (at WP and elsewhere) on Indian films frequently speak of the "response" or "turnout" as a percentage. For example, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom "opened to a 65-70% response, which was below expectations....The film has opened well in big cities such as Mumbai with a 75% turnout and Delhi which had a 70% response...all the big theatres reached to a 90%+ response with many being 100%." What is this measuring? --Sneftel (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the context of this article, it seems like its the occupancy rate all theaters. So, if a movie theater seats 100 people and sells 80 tickets, it has a 80% turnout or response. uhhlive (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Leonowens portrayed in the King and I

In the King and I, Anna Leonowens seems to be portrayed by a white woman with fair complexion. Why they just don't cast a dark-skinned woman as Anna Leonowens? 140.254.171.120 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Anna Leonowens was white, essentially. She was born in India but of British stock. There's some uncertainty about her maternal grandmother, whose name is not even known, and it's postulated she was only half white. That makes Anna at least 7/8 white. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Name of the film

I remember that I used to watch a movie that have an underground worm like monster that can detect vibration and someone in that movie created a homemade explosive and blow it up. And the movie has a wikipedia article about it. 140.0.229.26 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]