Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎The Simpsons Adult Genre: not the appropriate venue
AmericanDad86 (talk | contribs)
Line 86: Line 86:
There were edits notified by {{U|AmericanDad86}} and {{U|Grapesoda22}}, who has kept re-adding the Adult Animation genre on it. The shows ratings are mainly TV-PG, so there is no way that the show could only be watched by adults. I am currently asking should the genre that I have said should be removed, as when I looked at the reference that the first user putted, it describes a book that was written in 1994, but not that kind of attempt to be released by the creator of the show nor the airing network, Fox, as the authors of the book are Frank Hoffmann, and Beulah B. Ramirez, in which I'm stating that the reference is [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|not reliable]] to be accepted as the source is from the searching website, Google, in which was originally searched by the first user I mentioned. <small><small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:#EFCA37;padding:4px;">[[User:Blurred Lines|<b><font color="black">Blurred</font></b>]] [[User talk:Blurred Lines|<b><font color="black">Lines</font></b>]]</span></small></small> 03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There were edits notified by {{U|AmericanDad86}} and {{U|Grapesoda22}}, who has kept re-adding the Adult Animation genre on it. The shows ratings are mainly TV-PG, so there is no way that the show could only be watched by adults. I am currently asking should the genre that I have said should be removed, as when I looked at the reference that the first user putted, it describes a book that was written in 1994, but not that kind of attempt to be released by the creator of the show nor the airing network, Fox, as the authors of the book are Frank Hoffmann, and Beulah B. Ramirez, in which I'm stating that the reference is [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|not reliable]] to be accepted as the source is from the searching website, Google, in which was originally searched by the first user I mentioned. <small><small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:#EFCA37;padding:4px;">[[User:Blurred Lines|<b><font color="black">Blurred</font></b>]] [[User talk:Blurred Lines|<b><font color="black">Lines</font></b>]]</span></small></small> 03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


:Good grief! Way to blow a petty issue out of proportion and distort the entire story, BlurredLines. To correct the above, BlurredLines was edit warring against two other editors at ''[[The Simpsons]]'' article. These editors are [[User:WikiAnthony]] and [[User:Grapesoda22]] (as shown here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582988478&oldid=582983670], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582979986&oldid=582977030], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582763787&oldid=582763690] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582814252&oldid=582764058]). Ironically, BlurredLines would then follow this up with a barrage of warnings for disruptive edits at these other editors (as shown here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grapesoda22&diff=582980038&oldid=582953321], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grapesoda22&diff=582980185&oldid=582980038], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grapesoda22&diff=582988567&oldid=582980185]). Mind you, all this is in despite of the fact that it is BlurredLines who is the one edit warring against everybody (as shown here at ''The Simpsons'' article history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&action=history]). After being witness to all BlurredLines' petty edit warring, I then stepped in as liaison with a source to resolve the matter As shown by this source[http://books.google.com/books?id=e43sycR2-NwC&pg=PA225&dq=Simpsons+adult+cartoon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9GORUtq4KLLlsAT4nIHoBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Simpsons%20adult%20cartoon&f=false], ''The Simpsons'' is not only an adult cartoon, but it's also a show that led the entire wave of adult cartoons. And there are more sources where that came from to stating the same thing. When I incorporated my source and cautioned BlurredLines about his edit warring, he accused me of showing bad faith (as shown here at my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmericanDad86&diff=583036486&oldid=582951678]). Clearly, this editor has issues with edit warring and article ownership. [[User:AmericanDad86|AmericanDad86]] ([[User talk:AmericanDad86|talk]]) 04:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
:Good grief! Way to blow a petty issue out of proportion and distort the entire story, BlurredLines. To correct the above, BlurredLines was edit warring against two other editors at ''[[The Simpsons]]'' article. These editors are [[User:WikiAnthony]] and [[User:Grapesoda22]] (as shown here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582988478&oldid=582983670], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582979986&oldid=582977030], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582763787&oldid=582763690] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=582814252&oldid=582764058]). Ironically, BlurredLines would then follow this up with a barrage of warnings for disruptive edits at these other editors (as shown here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiAnthony&diff=582814881&oldid=582763828], here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grapesoda22&diff=582980038&oldid=582953321], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grapesoda22&diff=582980185&oldid=582980038], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grapesoda22&diff=582988567&oldid=582980185]). Mind you, all this is in despite of the fact that it is BlurredLines who is the one edit warring against everybody (as shown here at ''The Simpsons'' article history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&action=history]). After being witness to all BlurredLines' petty edit warring, I then stepped in as liaison with a source to resolve the matter As shown by this source[http://books.google.com/books?id=e43sycR2-NwC&pg=PA225&dq=Simpsons+adult+cartoon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9GORUtq4KLLlsAT4nIHoBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Simpsons%20adult%20cartoon&f=false], ''The Simpsons'' is not only an adult cartoon, but it's also a show that led the entire wave of adult cartoons. And there are more sources where that came from to stating the same thing. When I incorporated my source and cautioned BlurredLines about his edit warring, he accused me of showing bad faith (as shown here at my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmericanDad86&diff=583036486&oldid=582951678]). Clearly, this editor has issues with edit warring and article ownership. [[User:AmericanDad86|AmericanDad86]] ([[User talk:AmericanDad86|talk]]) 04:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


::The Ref Desk isn't the appropriate place to address this. I suggest discussion on the article talk page or, in the event that fails to curb the edit war, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]].
::The Ref Desk isn't the appropriate place to address this. I suggest discussion on the article talk page or, in the event that fails to curb the edit war, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]].

Revision as of 05:10, 24 November 2013

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Select a section:
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.



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:


November 17

Yuri's Revenge

In the second level of the Allied campaign in Yuri's Revenge (which takes place in L.A.), there are three special infantry units on the Allied side which are armed with anti-infantry weapons and immune to mind control. Here's my question: When the game first came out, these special units were named "Flint Westwood", "Sammy Stallion", and "Arnie Frankenfurter", but when the game was reissued as part of "Command and Conquer: The First Decade" collection, they were renamed "Cowboy", "Bodybuilder" and "Hero" respectively. Why? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the C&C Wiki: Due to possible legal reasons, Flint (along with the other celebrity Epic Units) have had their unique dialogue and names removed. All of the celebrities use G.I. quotes as placeholders. This applies to versions of the game with patches installed. The original version of the game (not patched) is the only version of the game with unaltered versions of the units. The original voice quotes for the Epic Units are still in the game though. CesarFelipe (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personality rights is the relevant article. Tevildo (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So it was their publicity rights that were the issue, right? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's whatever rights are associated with the names "Clint Eastwood", "Sylvester Stallone" and "Arnold Schwarzenegger", which will depend on jurisdiction, registered trade marks, and many other factors. The names were changed for _possible_ legal reasons, after all - the games company decided not to take the risk of any of the (potential) rights actually being asserted against them. Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original name of this song

What was the name of this song? by the way, this is a parody. here's the link: http://www.break.com/video/ugc/99-words-for-boobs-459241. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.232 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"99 Luftballons" or, in English, "99 Red Balloons". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A poetic translation, as "Luft" means "air". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Star Trek, who controls the ship's viewscreen?

Which of the bridge's station is in charge of changing the main viewscreen when the captain asks to? Or, is it the ship's computer that changes it upon command? I checked the official Technical Manuals for an answer, but I couldn't find any specific controls for the viewscreen anywhere. Thanks in advance, CesarFelipe (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Star Trek the Communications officer [1] and in Next Generation the Operations officer[2] or Tactical officer. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apparently so. Thank you. CesarFelipe (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

What show was playing on Fox 29 (the Buffalo one I believe) at around 1pm-2pm today (November 17, 2013)? Brambleclawx 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, it was WarGames (starring Matthew Broderick). Tevildo (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

Black and white televisions

Earlier in the year it was reported that there were still 13,000 black and white television licences in the United Kingdom.[3] I am wondering if there was any reliable figure on the number of black and white televisions in use around the world. Hack (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they still sell them. I've seen black and white CRT portables fairly recently, but with flat screen technology, there may no longer be any savings in black and white versus color. In theory the monochrome version should be slightly cheaper, if everybody bought it, but if the market is too small they will suffer in the economy of scale. Perhaps in 3rd world nations, where price is more critical, there's still enough of a market for them to overcome this. Then there's also sales of used TVs, some of which will be black and white.
And then there's taxes to consider. If the UK charges more for a color TV license, then I imagine a few stubborn people will stick with their old TV just to cheat the taxman. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only 5" but Amazon still has at least one model of black and white television. That said, it was also the only model I could find. Dismas|(talk) 05:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the target market for a B&W TV wouldn't be buying online. Hack (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Dismas|(talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "license" above and beyond the cable fee, or is it all one deal? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the license fee is a tax to watch TV. Probably best to have a look at Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Hack (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a tax which funds the BBC. There are quite a number of digital channels which you can receive through an aerial on your roof called "Freeview", or you can subscribe to satellite or cable TV, but you have to pay the Licence Fee however you get your signals. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hack's assumption and Alansplodge's confirmation are not quite accurate. The Licence is actually a tax on the ownership of apparatus capable of receiving broadcast TV transmissions – even if said apparatus is not actually used, or even connected (e.g. sitting in a cardboard box, or lacking a power plug).
Neither I nor my parents (in separate households) own a TV, and are annually required (by aggressively worded postal enquiries) to confirm that we do not, and thus are (still) not evading the Licence Fee.
Some years ago, I bought my parents a portable TV/Video Player to enable them to watch videos, and had to have the vendor remove a vital component from the set's tuner and provide a receipt affirming this, in order that I/they didn't incur legal liability for the Licence Fee. (Yes, they've since upgraded to DVDs as well, but they still don't have a TV receiver.)
The rules also cover programmes that are being streamed over the internet simultaneously with their airwave broadcast, so I have to be careful not to watch such live streaming on my PC (lest I incur liability for a Licence, and am fined for not having one when I should), although I can, perfectly legally, watch previously recorded programmes made available by the BBC's own iPlayer service and by similar online services from other companies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you call it 'cheating', StuRat? If it's perfectly legal and valid to choose to have a B/W TV, what's the issue? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using a different sense of the word, as in "cheating death". In this sense, it's not illegal, but the party "cheated" might still feel disappointed. Note that this is similar to the original meaning of escheatment. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
The difference being that originally it referred to someone's estate legally becoming the property of the state, whereas now it means someone being illegally deprived of something they're entitled to. Interesting redirection. Thanks for the enlightenment. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
It's only cheating if you have a B&W licence but actually watch a colour TV. But who would stoop to such trickery? Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be something delightfully Orwellian about inspectors going around to people's houses with television detectors. Hack (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People complain about government surveillance for terrorists, but they're just fine with the government spying on the use of their TV's? Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a small fleet of detector vans for that purpose, with elaborate aerials sprouting from the roof, although it is a widely held belief that there is no equipment inside them - see Myth of the TV detector van? and How do TV detector vans work?. I've never seen one and allegedly nobody has ever been prosecuted on evidence obtained by one. BTW Bugs, don't the IRS investigate those who don't pay their tax in the US? Or do they just work on the principle that you're all honest folks? Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IRS largely does work on the honor system. Random returns are selected for audits, especially returns with peculiarities to them. If you've got your paperwork in order, there should be no problem. It does occur to me that the TV "license" is vaguely akin to the "personal property tax" in America, which is largely about cars nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if you have your TV Licence paperwork in order, then there's no chance of a visit from the inspector. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not being british, I've wondered about the BBC TV detector vans. I know they've always been mostly for intimidation, but detecting a CRT and determining what channel it's on is pretty easy to do, so I always assumed that they actually did something. Can flat-panel LCDs be detected the same way? APL (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portable TV's with very small screens tended to be black and white, even in the 2000's, when I won one in a contest. I am not sure if the switch to digital and hi-def has changed this. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a bunch of b/w portables hitting stores really cheap shortly before the digital switch-over here in USA. That was in 2009. I remember being surprised it was even legal to sell them so close to the digital switch-over. APL (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be illegal, as long as the goods were properly described? I could legally sell my own beard clippings, as long as there was a market for it and people knew what they were getting. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was some rather deceptive advertising to dump the old stock of analog TVs. For example, they would say it was "HDTV capable", meaning that if you bought a converter box to change it from a digital signal to analog, this TV could display it. Of course, that was true of every analog TV, and buying a new analog TV knowing you would also need to buy a converter box made little sense. StuRat (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Making little sense for the buyers has never stopped people trying to sell unwanted stuff. That's why they say "caveat emptor". As long as the goods are appropriately described and meet all consumer protection laws (including no misleading advertising, and full disclosure where required), it's the buyer's responsibility to satisfy themselves they're buying something of value to them and the price they're paying is a reasonable reflection of that value. I certainly agree that selling an analogue TV without making it clear you'd also need to purchase a set top box seems to be veering towards unconscionable conduct, but IANAL. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The Cramps video of "I Can't Find My Mind" made in 1980 at UCLA Melnitz Hall Studio One, directed by Eugene Timiraos & Bradley Friedman

i desire to make an addition to the entry for the musical band, The Cramps. I, Eugene Timiraos, directed, taped and edited a color video tape-with-sound of them lip-synching their song "I Can't Find My Mind." This video was made at the UCLA film / video school's Melnitz Hall studio one in Professor Shirley Clarke's class when I was a graduate student in the Master of Fine Arts program. This video was co-directed with Bradley Friedman. It was most recently shown at MOCA (the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles) during the "Under the Big Black Sun" series in 2011. How can this be added or edited into the entry for the ultra-groovy "psychobilly" musical band, The Cramps? Please assist. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazul reet (talkcontribs) 06:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a published source for the information it can be added. Personal knowlege is not verifiable so unfortunately we cannot accept "I was there" stories. (Perhaps the MOCA published a brochure or something similar about it?) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant in Downton Abbey, season 4 episode 8

Hi all, I just finished watching the fourth season of Downton Abbey. In the last episode, Mary has lunch with Lord Gillingham in London in a restaurant that looks like a 19th century greenhouse. I was thinking it must be Kew Gardens, but it doesn't seem to be the Orangery or any of the other houses that are used as restaurants today. Can anyone tell what place this is? Thanks a lot, Groogokk (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the episode in question, but, according to our article (which is cited to this article from the Telegraph), it may have been the Criterion Restaurant or the Saville Club. Do either of these look promising? Tevildo (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify, are you asking where it was filmed (which may or may not be an actual restaurant), or the name of the (possibly fictional) restaurant on the show ? Also note that DA is set in the early 20th century (1910's and 1920's), but I suppose, being rather traditional, they might choose to dine at an older 19th century establishment. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo, I'm afraid it is neither of the two restaurants the articles mention.
StuRat, I don't believe they'd make up a London restaurant for the show, so I think that the one in question either existed once or does still exist. Its name was not mentioned in the episode. To clarify, I am looking for the name of the place where it was filmed.
I still suspect in Kew Gardens, because the building looks like a large Victorian greenhouse and the doors opened to what looked like a park, but I'd like to know for sure. Groogokk (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


November 20

Birthplace of Selena Quintanilla's parents?

I know that the dead Tejano singer Selena Quintanilla was born in Lake Jackson, Texas, but Selena's mother is half Cherokee and half Mexican and her father is a Mexican American, but other sources say he's Mexican. Where were her parents born? Haven't seen any information about that yet for some reason. Willminator (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on her father Abraham Quintanilla, Jr. says he was born in Corpus Christi. Rmhermen (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that answers one part of my question. Now, what about Selena's mother? Where was she born? I still can't find any information on that. Willminator (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: I saw an answer on Wiki.answers that says that Marcella Quintanilla was born in Wapato, Washington, but I haven't seen any reputable source or any other source outside of Wiki.answers that answers where she was born exactly. Where was she born and where can I find this information? Willminator (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in or before 1940, she would be in the 1940 US Census, although I don't know if that is indexed or not. RNealK (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could phone the Selena museum (361-289-9013). The best email address I could find is for media/public relations for the company that runs it: qpr@q-productions.com. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, guess what? I just phoned the Selena museum like you suggested. A guy picked up the phone and then I asked him my question. He said that Selena's mother, Marcella, was born in the U.S, but he doesn't remember where in the U.S, which I thought it was kind of odd that he didn't know where in the U.S. Anyway, half of that part of the second part of the question has been answered, or in total three quarters of my question has been answered. Now that it has been confirmed to me that she was born in the U.S, I'd like to know where in the U.S Selena's mother was born. Willminator (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: As you also suggested, I just wrote an email to the email address you sent me. Let's see if I get a response. I will let you know what the response says when I get one. Hopefully, the response would be a better one. Willminator (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not received a reply back from q-productions yet, but I did find out that Marcella's father originated from Amarillo, while her mother was from Colorado, which makes her have more American heritage than I thought. Question almost completely answered.... Willminator (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolaids Relief Man Award

Can anyone find out what happened to the Rolaids Relief Man Award, given annually to the best relief pitchers in the National League and American League ? The award's web site has gone dead, no announcement about winners was made this year, but I can't find anything that states the award has been discontinued. I suspect there may be something about the sponsorship from Rolaids running out, but again, I can't find any source to confirm this, or any indication that a replacement award has been created. The award has been given out since 1976 and is quite prestigious, so I'm baffled that it seems to have disappeared without a trace or any public comment. --Xuxl (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me. If the makers of Rolaids decided they could get more bang for the buck with some other form of advertisement or sponsorship, they would want to avoid the negative press associated with withdrawing their sponsorship here, by ending it silently. For comparison, you see all sorts of announcements that new TV shows are arriving, but when is the last time you saw an announcement that one has been canceled ? StuRat (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They use codes these days, Stu. A new show gets a big hypatious build-up for a few weeks (or months in some cases). But if, 3 weeks in, they announce the "season finale" will be next week, and be sure not to miss it, when they never said up front it was only ever going to be a 4-week season, you know there ain't gonna be no 2nd "season". Or when a new show is suddenly moved to a "special time", and maybe more than one such move, before the almost inevitable unexpected "season finale", that's code for "it's really not doing very well and we're seeing if more than few dozen people will watch it if we try a different time slot, before giving up entirely". Then, if you watch their nightly consumer watch program masquerading as a current affairs program, they'll be coming down hard on companies that engage in false and misleading and tricky advertising and other underhand and dishonest business practices. What a joke. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It almost makes you feel like you need a Rolaid, doesn't it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A key question would be what date the award was announced in past years. I've been unable to locate that info. But one thing Xuxl could do is post an email from the Rolaids website and ask when this year's winner will be announced, or some other equally good leading question. If you get no answer, that might be the answer. It's worth pointing out that MLB has been issuing some kind of award for several years now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exploring the mlb. com site, I see they list the award winners from 1976-2006 without mentioning the sponsor, but omit the last few seasons. The mlb site also has the DHL Delivery Man Award, sponsored by DHL, but that's for one reliever per league, as voted on by fans. The Sporting News also had its own award (running from 1960 to 2010, see The Sporting News Reliever of the Year Award), but that also seems to have been discontinued. So it seems that there is no award for the best reliever in each league anymore. Unfortunately, I don't think this is enough to update the Rolaids Relief Man Award article, given the lack of a reliable source. --Xuxl (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MLB site has had a lone reliever of the year dating from 2006 to 2012. I saw some chatter about renaming the award for Mariano Rivera, but if they've discontinued these kinds of awards then it becomes moot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball-Reference.com has awards listed up to 2012 and says that the award seems to have been discontinued at that point. Matt Deres (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

I have a question about Japanese shows that are westernize here in North America

So I have found out recently that the so-called Power_Rangers franchise is a westernize franchise of the Japanese franchise Super_sentai for English speaking countries. I'm just curious, how many Japanese TV shows besides anime of course are made for westernize English-language adaptions? Venustar84 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "Westernize" you mean taking existing footage and repurposing it into a new product, than the game show Takeshi's Castle became MXC. Mingmingla (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's Up, Tiger Lily? would be a pioneering effort in this field. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're looking at movies, The Magnificent Seven (1960) is a remake of Seven Samurai (1954). HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a remake rather than a recutting of the same film, but they're both great epics, the one following the other's general plot line pretty closely. (Given the setting, you could say it was literally "westernized".) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I loved the fact that one of the seven in Seven Samurai was bald headed, and his first appearance showed him splitting firewood. Then the Hollywood producers used Yul Brynner for the equivalent character, and in his first scene, he was... splitting firewood. I thought that was the ultimate in being blatantly derivative. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you're going to do a remake, don't do it halfway! I wonder if the Japanese theme music for Seven Samurai was likewise used for advertising something in Japan? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case the OP is curious, you can add endings onto wikilinked words simply by placing the ending on the other side of the square brackets, so that [[westernize]]d becomes westernized. You can also use what are called "piped links" to direct people to an article without going through the redirect, so that [[Westernization|westernize]]d also becomes westernized. Not a big deal; just FYI. Matt Deres (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a TV show, but Godzilla was Raymond Burrized, leading to a long trend of Westernizing the franchise, ranging from minor changes in translation to major revamps to a full-on movie about a large iguana. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
Several Studio Ghibli movies have been released by Disney with some Westernisation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Marvel comics

Hi guys,

I come from France and as many Europeans, I don't know anything about US comics. I'd like to know some things about it:

  1. Does every super hero still has a comics running every week? like Batman or Superman, are they still published?
  2. Are comic books about only one character or can you find stories about Hulk, Thor, Batman, etc in the same book?
  3. We always see soft books in movies, do you have hard ones too? Like the comics we have in Europe (Asterix for example if you've ever heard about it)
  4. Are those stories short stories are is it a long story to follow weeks after weeks? Could I buy any new comics or would I be totally lost in the story?
  5. What is the average price of a new comics book? Are they popular amongst all ages and social categories in the States?
  6. And last questions, are European comics famous in US? Do you know about Smurfs, Tintin, Asterix or Spirou?

Thanks a lot!

Eric 92.97.194.203 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered your list for easier answering. For 6, most Americans old enough know the Smurfs, it was a very popular TV cartoon here for while. There was also a fairly recent movie, so youngsters probably also know them. I learned about Asterix from the video games he appeared in (some really good ones at the end of the 90s arcade era). Tintin also had a recent US movie, I don't know who Spirou is. I can't speak for all Americans, but most of those names have at least some currency here :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Superhero books are generally not weekly. I think some newspapers still carry the daily Spiderman/Superman comic, but like most other strips in the paper, they're more like fossils than actual entertainment. Most comic books are published monthly or bi-monthly (meaning every two months).
  2. Well, there are team books, such as Uncanny X-Men or The Avengers, and numerous solo books. Marvel has occasionally experimented with anthology series, but they rarely seem to do well these days. Back in the 1960s, they were much more popular (Tales of Suspense, Tales to Astonish and so on).
  3. Yes, there are hardbound comic books. They're usually referred to as graphic novels.
  4. There is a mixture, but most series contain ongoing stories. For this reason, series are often "stopped" and restarted in a new volume, with a new #1 issue. If you start reading with a first issue, you'll usually arrive at the beginning of a new story, or at least you'll get a proper explanation of backstory.
  5. Comics prices vary, but they're usually around $2-$3 per issue, sometimes more. There's a breakdown here and the text also explains some history of the pricing practices.
  6. They're not conventionally famous. The animated Smurfs TV series was quite popular back in the 1980s and the recent movies have of course raised public awareness. The Tintin movie did very poorly in North America (but well overseas) and I think this points to a general difference in popularity. I grew up with and loved Asterix (I'm Canadian, by the way, not American, if that makes a difference to the answers), but again, he's not very popular in North America in general. I had never heard of Spirou. When North Americans are in the mood for non-North American comics, Japanese manga is the overwhelming first choice. European creators such as Alan Moore and Alan Davis are quite well known, but their earlier, European, work is largely unknown.
If you have any other questions, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page (or here, of course). Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I only answered half of #5. There are people of all walks of life who read comic books. However, superhero comics are still pretty firmly a "males age 18-49" thing. The price point frankly makes it tricky for kids to get interested in them unless they know someone with a collection. The distribution is also very different than it used to be; growing up in the 1980s, every drug store and grocery store had a spinner rack (Really?! No article? Okay, a spinner rack) or two with all the latest issues. Nowadays, such stores only have a handful of comics and they're crammed in with the juvenile magazines. Instead, comic books are mostly sold via specialty shops, as described in our direct market article. A great source of material and so forth, but they're much rarer than grocery stores and so require a special trip to even get to. Marvel and DC have tried many times (often ham-handedly)to raise the level of female readership, but with only limited success. The audience for a comic book movie such as the recent Thor was a pretty even split between males and females; girls are a much rarer occurrence in the comics shop, though it's much better than it used to be. People over 50 tend not to be big comic readers; they were raised at a time when comics were seen as juvenile nonsense and often gave up reading in their childhood. Matt Deres (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to Spirou, a disambiguation page for various articles about the character. Oh and I am obviously some sort of weird 57 year old comic book reader. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Movie question

Isn't there a movie which tells the story of serial killer Tsutomu Miyazaki. I have read so, and this is the wallpaper but I do not understand Japanese to read the wallpaper. What's the name of the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.144.232 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

baseball player who had a buzzcut about a year ago

Hi, I'm looking for a particular Baseball player, which about a year ago had a buzzcut(about 6mm). Before the cut he had a medium hairstyle. one of the reporter has said he has a girly hair. his hair is brown, he is white, and some black eyes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.63.163 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any clue which team? (And where is Jayron when we need him?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "baseball player" and "girly hair" gets me this terrible story. It won't help much, but it's more relevant than the other nine top results (mostly about football). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

November 24

The Simpsons Adult Genre

There were edits notified by AmericanDad86 and Grapesoda22, who has kept re-adding the Adult Animation genre on it. The shows ratings are mainly TV-PG, so there is no way that the show could only be watched by adults. I am currently asking should the genre that I have said should be removed, as when I looked at the reference that the first user putted, it describes a book that was written in 1994, but not that kind of attempt to be released by the creator of the show nor the airing network, Fox, as the authors of the book are Frank Hoffmann, and Beulah B. Ramirez, in which I'm stating that the reference is not reliable to be accepted as the source is from the searching website, Google, in which was originally searched by the first user I mentioned. Blurred Lines 03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Way to blow a petty issue out of proportion and distort the entire story, BlurredLines. To correct the above, BlurredLines was edit warring against two other editors at The Simpsons article. These editors are User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda22 (as shown here [4], here [5], here [6] and here [7]). Ironically, BlurredLines would then follow this up with a barrage of warnings for disruptive edits at these other editors (as shown here [8], here[9], here [10], here [11]). Mind you, all this is in despite of the fact that it is BlurredLines who is the one edit warring against everybody (as shown here at The Simpsons article history [12]). After being witness to all BlurredLines' petty edit warring, I then stepped in as liaison with a source to resolve the matter As shown by this source[13], The Simpsons is not only an adult cartoon, but it's also a show that led the entire wave of adult cartoons. And there are more sources where that came from to stating the same thing. When I incorporated my source and cautioned BlurredLines about his edit warring, he accused me of showing bad faith (as shown here at my talk page [14]). Clearly, this editor has issues with edit warring and article ownership. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Ref Desk isn't the appropriate place to address this. I suggest discussion on the article talk page or, in the event that fails to curb the edit war, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

Injuries to officials in American football

Is there any league at any level of American football that publishes injury statistics for officials? I'm trying to find anything whatsoever on this subject, but all I've found is player-injury statistics. Health issues in American football, for example, says nothing about anyone other than the players. My goal is to find something discussing injuries per position; I'm guessing that umpires have the highest rates of injury because they're right in the middle, but I don't have any solid backing for this guess. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]