Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

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



The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of entertainment.

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

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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


December 4[edit]

Star Wars chronology[edit]

I'm a "casual" fan of Star Wars, not geeky about it. What is the proper narrative chronology of the movies? The films were not made in the "correct" order, some later films cover events that predate earlier films. The "Episode" numbers don't make much sense to me. If I want to watch the whole set of movies should I do so in the order they were published or would the narrative sequence be easier to follow? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Star Wars episode numbers give the in-universe chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The release order is episode 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7. Rogue One opening this month has no episode number but takes place between episode 3 and 4. Star Wars fans can be a bit obsessive and there are different opinions about the best viewing order. See for example [1] or try to Google Star Wars viewing order. Some recommend the Machete Order: 4, 5, 2, 3, 6 (skipping 1, named before 7 was announced). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You've forgotten the Holiday Special which was released between ep 4 & 5. I know of dedicated Star Wars fans who deny it's existance, but I saw it on the TV when it first transmitted. Put me off Star Wars for life, not that I was a huge fan of the first film which I also saw in 1977. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I know from personal experience that it's best saved for the last part of a marathon, but only if you are watching a marathon with other people. The holiday special is not something you watch, it's something you make Star Wars fans who haven't heard of it watch so you can watch their reactions. Kinda like telling dead baby jokes... on an evangelical forum... after sorting out which ones don't actually violate any of the site's rules... Ian.thomson (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
And, if you can find it, C-3PO conducting the Boston Pops Orchestra in a medley of Star Wars music. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to include TV specials, then there is not one, but two Ewok movies to include as well; Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor. They aren't good, but they're better than the Holiday Special. Once you get into the "expanded universe" stuff (i.e. what is outside of the cinematic movies) it gets bloated and convoluted. There's actually two distinct canons for this; there's what is now called Star Wars Legends, which is all of the material that was part of the OLD LucasFilm canon, and which was actually meticulously maintained (see Holocron) so as to avoid major continuity errors (but is HUGE, with books, TV series, video games, comics, etc.) and the modern Star Wars canon, which was basically "reset" after Disney completed its purchase of Star Wars from Lucas, and dumped everything except the core Episode 1-6 films, one animated film, and two TV series. So, before one gets deep into the Star Wars Legendarium, one needs to decide which canon one wishes to commit too. The old, now retired canon has some really good stories (the Timothy Zahn Thrawn trilogy and Ann C. Crispin's Han Solo Trilogy are notably pretty good) and some really bad ones as well; but remember that those works will not have any continuity with the any forthcoming films (i.e. the Thrawn books take place pretty much contemporaneous with the current sequel trilogy, episodes 7-9, and the Han Solo Trilogy is not being used to inform the planned 2018 Han Solo origin story). --Jayron32 18:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOR (though I'm sure I could find blogs making each argument), but: If you watch them in episode order, the "big surprise" of 5 has less impact (though since you're a fan, no matter how casual, you already know what it is). If you watch them in release order, the tragedy of 3 is rather lost as you see it coming three movies ago, but the redemption in 6 makes more sense. 7 seems more or less made to be viewed either before or after the other 6, though from what I've seen here in China, it doesn't have as much of an effect if you haven't seen any of the others. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Excellent point. Also, the production values of Empire ("Episode V") and the relative depth of some of the plot elements led critics to rave about it, despite its implied "to be continued" at the end. Of course, the viewer would have to see 4 before seeing 5, or 5 wouldn't make a lot of sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am also a "casual" fan, having seen most of them only once. I recommend them in production order, so that you can see how each one built on (or was derived from) the previous ones. If you can find the original, un-tinkered with film (later called Episode IV), you can see what they started with, and can perhaps imagine why it was such a sensation at the time, as well as establishing the formula for the series. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The correct order to watch them is Blue Harvest, then Something, Something, Something, Dark Side and finally It's a Trap!. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That last one seems fishy.
And let's not forget Hardware Wars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a Trap! was so bad it came with a warning at the beginning that they'd run out of jokes. Why they haven't shown that at the beginning of every episode since about season 8 is a mystery for another day. Matt Deres (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Recommended order: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Force Awakens. That is to say: ignore the prequels (they add nothing to the story and are mostly bad). Try to get hold of the original theatrical releases (or at least the early re-releases) rather than the special editions, which spoil more than they improve.Iapetus (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, if you haven't seen the original in a while, I recommend Googling star wars revisited to obtain the best version of A New Hope that exists. Don't let the "fan edit" tag fool you and have a look at the previews all over YouTube; the DVDs are of superior quality to what's been passed off as "Blu-Ray" and many of Lucas' most egregious blunders have been seamlessly removed. Matt Deres (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Like the part where Obi-Wan said that Darth Vader had murdered Luke's father? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's what happened, from a certain point of view. --Jayron32 18:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Right, from the point of view of not-having-written-the-sequel's-script-yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

First-person video games[edit]

what was the first First-person video games?--2001:B07:6463:31EE:39DC:CEF7:1892:5CAC (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the article, either Spasim or Maze War. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

December 5[edit]

Bandy in 1913[edit]

A post has been made at Talk:1913 European Bandy Championships about whether the 1913 European Bandy Championships really happened, refering to this page: [2]. I don't know what to think. Who are the "prominent hockey historians" who are said to have been researching the matter? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The site you link to has a talk option - you might be more likely to get an answer by raising the question there. This is a very obscure subject, and I doubt you will get much joy here. Wymspen (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I actually didn't see there was a talk option there. Thanks for pointing it out. And sports history is not that obscure, more nerdy. :-) Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

December 6[edit]

New York Raiders/Nassau Coliseum[edit]

New York Golden Blades says that when the World Hockey Association wanted to put a team (originally known as the New York Raiders) in the New York area in its first season, "The team was initially slated to play in the brand-new Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum on Long Island. However, Nassau County didn't consider the WHA a major league and wanted nothing to do with the Raiders." This is uncited. The Nassau Coliseum did manage to secure a team in the National Hockey League instead, the New York Islanders. That article says, "County officials did not consider the WHA a major league and wanted to keep the Raiders out. However, they discovered that they couldn't legally lock out the Raiders until they persuaded an NHL team to play there." That's cited to http://www.whahockey.com/raiders.html -- although that source doesn't say anything about the county wanting to keep a supposedly minor-league WHA team out of their arena, nor that they would need to have an NHL team to legally prevent the WHA team from playing there. So there isn't any source provided in either article for the county's antipathy toward having a WHA team in their arena.

And it doesn't make sense to me, either. How would it have been against the county's interests to have another tenant in their arena, paying rent for 40 home games a year? Before the Islanders were formed, the Coliseum had only one regular tenant, the New York Nets, and after spending $32 million building the arena, I would think that the county would have wanted to get as much use out of it as possible. Of course, having an NHL team would have been more desirable than having a WHA team, but that didn't mean that a WHA team should have been shunned. After all, Madison Square Garden managed to be the home arena for the WHA's Raiders while already serving the NHL's New York Rangers (albeit on unfavorable terms for the Raiders). And Boston Garden, Maple Leaf Gardens, and Pacific Coliseum also managed to have both NHL and WHA teams simultaneously at various times as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • It also doesn't say that having an NHL team would "legally lock out" a WHA team from using the arena. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    If it is not in the source, remove the statement entirely. If it can't be proven, and it seems like bullshit to you, it's probably bullshit. If someone comes along later with a reliable source, they can show their source so we can add it back in later. --Jayron32 18:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Who wrote more songs?[edit]

Me and my friend are having a huge argument about it, so I just decided to ask here:

Which band wrote more songs, The Beatles or The Who? Covers of songs by other bands don't count, nor do individual records (like Imagine by John Lennon). I'm pretty sure the answer is The Who, but my friend is insistent that The Beatles wrote more. Can someone clarify the answer for us so the argument can end? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Lennon–McCartney lists 193 songs; while they were the primary songwriters for the Beatles, there were a few written by George Harrison (roughly 2 per album), which gives another 20 or so songs, and at least one song Flying (Beatles instrumental), credited to all 4 songs. That gives us 215ish songs. Category:Songs written by Pete Townshend, the primary songwriter for The Who, only has 132 songs in it; throw in a few dozen by other members, and that's still less than 200. Plus, we'd have to pull out all of the Solo songs Townsend did. The Beatles win. --Jayron32 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
For comparison, there are also List of songs recorded by the Beatles and List of songs recorded by The Who (both of which include songs that do not have their own article on WP and thus aren't included in the categories). I currently don't have what it takes to make an exact count on each list (excluding the covers of songs by other bands etc.). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I don't even have what it takes to read beyond the first sentence. The second sentence of the Beatles list: "There are a total of 409 songs listed on this page, with 172 of them being cover songs and 237 being original compositions.". The Who's list still would need to be counted though. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
A quick count (by taking the fact that scrolling down by a screen reveals 30 new songs) suggests that there about 220 songs on the The Who list, and since some of those will be covers then it is almost certain (barring a failure to count on my part) that there are fewer written by them than the Beatles. MChesterMC (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Well done. The only caveat I would add is that The Who are still active (granted that their last studio album was released a decade ago), so Roger and Co. could have a shot at passing the Fab Four if they so chose. Matt Deres (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
One thing that throws people off in the accounting is how prolific the Beatles were in such a short time. Their entire recording history covers only about 7 1/2 years (mid/late 1962 - late 1969/early 1970) while The Who started almost at the same time, recorded much longer period of time (late 1964-2006). The Who, however, released no albums between 1982-2006. Look at the numbers. The Who released 11 albums over their lifetime; throwing out the outlier Endless Wire, that's 10 albums from 1965-1982, ten albums in 17 years, which is about an album every 20 months or so. The Beatles released (going by the official modern canon, which gets confusing because of the difference between US and UK releases), 12 albums in 7.5 years, which is an album every 9 months. Not counting singles, EPs, etc. How? The Who was always a touring, live band. The Beatles were primarily a studio band, so much so that after 1966 they stopped touring. Except for the occasional one-off mini concert or TV performance, they basically quit performing live and did all of their work in the studio. The Who went the other way; they even tried to write an album live on the stage (see Lifehouse, which became the nexus of Who's Next) they preferred live performance over studio work. All the Beatles did was write and record; which is why they have more original songs to their credit. The Who spent a LOT of their professional life touring and performing. --Jayron32 19:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December 7[edit]

Asma El-Bakry[edit]

Hi, I am looking for French and Arabic-language sources that cover Asma El Bakry, an Egyptian film director, in significant detail. Hack (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's one in Arabic. Omidinist (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
And this one in French, though not 'in significant detail'. Omidinist (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I am specifically looking for coverage in reliable sources - like newspapers, books, encyclopaedias, reference works etc. Hack (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Here are a couple of articles in French: [3], [4]. --Xuxl (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NCAA and NAIA athletics programs which have college football programs but not basketball programs[edit]

There are a number of NCAA and NAIA athletics programs which have basketball programs but not college football programs, either because they were abolished or the colleges never had them in the first place. But what about the reverse: are there any colleges in the NCAA and NAIA which have college football programs but do not have basketball programs, or do all NCAA and NAIA programs which at present have college football programs also have basketball programs? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't know of any current examples of football schools without basketball. However, there have been examples in the past that I know of, in each case because there was a scandal in the men's basketball program caused that program to be suspended while the football team continued on -- at Kentucky for one season in the 1950s, at Southwestern Louisiana (now Louisiana-Lafayette) for two seasons in the 1970s, and at Tulane for four seasons in the 1980s. In Tulane's case, the university had announced it was ending the men's basketball program permanently due to a point-shaving scandal, but relented after a few years and brought it back. All of these situations are described in the Death penalty (NCAA) article. (Also, since your question was about basketball rather than specifying men's basketball, Kentucky didn't have varsity women's basketball in the 1950s, and Southwestern Louisiana and Tulane kept women's basketball even during the periods that their men's basketball programs were out.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, I forgot to specify that I was was referring specifically to men's basketball. I thought it would have been clear given the context. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
For anyone wondering, the reason it is quite common for universities to have a basketball program but not a football one is that running a football program is much, much more expensive and requires a considerably higher number of student-athletes and coaches to even field a team. As a result, many smaller schools will forego a football team while still running a basketball squad. The reverse is extremely rare (hence the OP's question) and is usually the result of violations that have led to the suspension of the basketball program. --Xuxl (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There are really only two reasons why a school would choose to NOT run an athletic program, and really the second is a subset of the first 1) the costs associated with running the program are too great and 2) the risks of injury or harm for athletes in running the program are too great. When comparing basketball to football, the numbers clearly bear out the HUGE difference in costs. Just on raw numbers of athletes alone, a college football team carries 85 uniformed players. A college basketball team carries 15. So EVEN if all we had to do was to pay tuition, clothe, train, and pay transportation costs for the players, football is already almost SIX TIMES more expensive. Now consider that football ALSO has more expensive equipment (mostly padding and helmets for players) vs. basketball (a tank top and shorts), more expensive facilities to maintain (grass or turf fields vs. a wooden floor), MUCH greater liability and medical costs, and you begin to see why lots MORE schools don't run football than run basketball. If we just look at NCAA Division I, there are about 351 member institutions, about 1/3rd of which don't play football, and exactly zero of which don't play basketball. Among male athletes, football is the most popular sport by athlete participation (remember: 85 vs. 15), but among number of institutions which sponsor the sport, basketball is. According to this, in 2015, there were 773 college football teams, at all levels from NCAA Division I FBS (the highest level), through junior (2-year) college teams. If you check out College basketball, you'll see that there are likely THOUSANDS of institutions playing college basketball; there 1066 member schools that sponsor basketball in the NCAA alone, not counting NAIA and junior colleges. If we do a little Fermi calculation and assume that every conference has about 10 schools in it; you see there are a total of 198 different conferences or leagues sponsoring college basketball in the US. That's almost 2000 schools in the U.S. that sponsor the sport; which is MUCH more than the 773 sponsoring football. Why? Costs. As you see herethis shows that football program costs a school about $1.3 million per year, all other sports combined cost only $4.0 million. When you're spending over 1/5th of your budget on a single sport, it's clear why schools will often not sponsor football. Basketball is comparatively much cheaper: its participation rates compare favorably to football (i.e. it is almost as popular, and in some areas of the US more popular), and it costs a LOT less to run. --Jayron3232 19:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Thanks for the comprehensive answer; are there any statistics for high school? I imagine there are small high schools in Texas that strive so hard to field a football team there is nothing left for basketball. jnestorius(talk) 12:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This report from the National Federation of State High School Associations lists the number of schools participating in various sports around the country. As you can see there are 18,072 schools playing men's basketball, and 14,154 schools playing 11-man football (with about 1500 playing a modified form of the game). So clearly there are more schools playing basketball than football, but that does NOT preclude at least one school in the world which plays football but not basketball. Just for comparison to the total numbers, there are a little more than 36,000 high schools in the U.S.), so there are about half which do not sponsor basketball, the most popular sport in the U.S. by number of high schools. --Jayron32 13:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Melinda McRae - a novelist[edit]

Hi there. My wife is very interested in romances and she is an avid reader. She wants to find out if there are any new books by this author - Melinda McRae. Wikipedia does not have an article on her. Her first novel was "The Duke's daughter" 1991 and the last one: "Miss Chadwick's companion." published in 2000. Thank you --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this help? --Jayron32 01:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A Google search turned up this RomanceWiki article, this page on Goodreads, the link Jayron already mentioned, and Amazon has an author page for her. †dismas†|(talk) 01:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

On the fiddle[edit]

Does anyone happen to know in which year(s) was the movie On the Fiddle set (and in particular, which year does Connery enlist in the RAF)? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the British Comedy Guide story outline (see the link in the article) you will learn that it is set over a period of several years. As the Connery character enlists for genuine reasons, it is reasonable to assume early in the war - 1939 or 1940 - while the latest date they could be working with the resistance in France is 1944. A longer synopsis here - https://www.fictiondb.com/author/rf-delderfield~stop-at-winner~168311~b.htm - actually says they are sent to France after D-Day'Wymspen (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! So he enlisted early, but only saw action in 1944? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That is the key to the plot - it is about someone who has been forced to enlist, and who is doing everything possible to avoid actually having to fight. The twist is that when there is no way out, they actually succeed in what they are sent to do. Wymspen (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
See Conscription in the United Kingdom for context. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It could hardly be 1939 or 1940 (or 1941), as there's a Yank (Sergeant Buzzer) over there in the trailer I watched. The TCM synopsis mentions an American air base in Cornwall. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
But where in the movie is the scene in the trailer taken from? --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 10[edit]