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.
Shortcut:
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 ~~~~ (four tildes) 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


June 28[edit]

Something to do with Detroit and songs[edit]

Songs About Detroit: I Think You Should add Makin' Thunderbirds, from the Bob Seger album "The Distance," to this list. Definitely Detroit Related. They were made at the Wixom Plant, just outside of Detroit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.254.227 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

List of songs about Detroit is the article in question - you can edit it yourself! (This article was up for AfD in 2007, and survived - I'm not sure it would be so fortunate today). Tevildo (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is membership in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences automatic if you win an Academy Award/Oscar?[edit]

The general question is: how do they extend membership into the Academy? I assume the Academy (or some subgroup of it) makes a determination either subjectively or through some criteria. Does anyone know how this works? But, to get to my real question: is membership extended to anyone who ever wins an Oscar? In other words, if you win an Oscar, you will be invited to join. Is that how it works? Or, among all Oscar winners, some are invited and some not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences#Membership not answer your question? --Jayron32 02:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No. I am confused. That article states: "Membership eligibility may be achieved by earning a competitive Oscar nomination." Does that mean (A) once you get an Oscar nomination, you become eligible to be a member, but there are still more hoops and steps to the process before you get a membership? Or (B) once you get an Oscar nomination, you "automatically" become a member? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that an actor is not invited to membership in the Academy when they win an Oscar, but a little earlier, when they are nominated for the Oscar, and that there is also a sponsorship process. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the primary source at http://www.oscars.org/about/join-academy may answer some of your questions. Yes, one who is nominated for an Oscar automatically becomes eligible to become a member (and do not require sponsors). But all candidates must first be approved by the appropriate branch committee first, who then each send their recommendations to the Academy's Board of Governors. It is the Board of Governors who have the final say on which individuals receive an invitation to become a member (I believe this final point is written into the Academy's bylaws). I myself could see a possible situation where a famous singer-songwriter gets nominated for Best Original Song, but the Board of Governors might get hesitant because this person is otherwise not really active in the film industry. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. So, in my post above (at 03:02, 28 June 2015 UTC), I listed an alternative "A" and an alternative "B". You are saying that "A" is the case, and not "B". Correct? So, getting an Oscar nomination does not "equal" automatic membership. There are still a few other hoops to go through (e.g., Board of Governor vote, etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, to clear up a point of confusion. I was reading the following list of Academy invitations to membership this year (Academy Invites Record 322 New Members in Push for More Oscar Diversity). I am not familiar with many of the categories/branches, so I will stick with the most publicly visible (namely, actors and actresses). In the list at that above link, why isn't every single actor and actress nominated in the last Oscar ceremony invited? (This was the most recent ceremony: 87th Academy Awards.) In fact, very few are. I don't understand. All of those twenty actors and actresses (5 Best Actor nominees, 5 Best Actress nominees, etc.) are eligible to become a member. Yet, few are on this list of new invitees. What gives? I am sure the same holds for the other categories, but those are names I don't know or recognize as easily. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it is explained above. Imagine applying to a college that only accepts high school graduates. If you graduated from high school, the admissions office considers your application using various unpublished criteria (possibly including "old boy network") and says yes or no. If you never graduated from high school or passed an equivalency test, the college won't even think about admitting you. But even if you graduated, a selective college might only accept 5% of eligible applicants. You are not guaranteed anything.

    In the case of AMPAS, the "eligibility" conferred by winning or being nominated for an Oscar, or sponsored by two members of a branch, is analogous to graduating from high school. It means your application will be considered, but it doesn't mean that you will necessarily be accepted. The Oscar voters are like your high school, but the "admissions office" is the board of governors.

    The 322 invitees this year is in fact an unusually high number: it's typically 100 or even fewer. The high number of invitees, and the relatively high demographic diversity within that group, is the result of AMPAS taking heat for being a self-selecting elitist club of old white guys. So they decided to do something about it and invite more people from a broader cross-section of the industry this year. Is this still confusing? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's still confusing. I "get" the whole analogy: a high school graduate seeking admission to college is analogous to the Oscar winner who seeks membership in AMPAS. (Actually, vice-versa: the Oscar winner is analogous to the high school graduate.) A lot of people want to get in, but only a select few will be able to get it. I get that part of it. What my original question was getting at was: do they use simply subjective criteria? Or are there any objective criteria? If they use merely subjective criteria, then the whole thing is quite arbitrary. I suspect they don't want that (i.e., you, as an Oscar winner, have merely a random chance of being admitted into AMPAS). If two people win a Best Actor Oscar, why would one be admitted to AMPAS and another be denied? Seems very arbitrary and random. Is the whole thing simply a popularity contest? Hollywood politics? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, apparently something like that, it is a secretive organization (there's not even a published list of members) and as mentioned above, it's been accused of being an old boy network. This year's large incoming group really does seem to have been a response to that criticism, from what I've been reading. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
As a further answer, AMPAS is basically a trade association, and as such it picks members who it thinks are likely to advance the association's interests. This led to inbreeding which the association was smart enough to recognize as counterproductive. The large number of non-US invitees in the current list would seem to indicate someone figured out that there is a film industry in places outside Hollywood. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you're an old white man, your chances are still better than a young black woman's, but young black women stand a better chance than ever next time, if the Academy truly wants to appear to shake this reputation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

need a race name/specie name for my book[edit]

ok so i'm writing a book and i'm stuck.i need a fictional race name that fits with an anthropomorphic wolf with yellow stripes/markings.this book is about war so no friendly race names please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceKeeper (talkcontribs) 12:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Fictional species and races and Category:Fictional warrior races might be a useful starting point. ("Species" singular, incidentally). I would recommend at least one apostrophe and a high consonant/vowel ratio. Tevildo (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If he's got yellow stripes, maybe "Chicken Wolf"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That reminds me - what are those things that advertise Anchor cheese supposed to be? Bees? Apes? Cows or mice, one could understand, but... Tevildo (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
They're 'Hugglers' says this advertising blah. Nanonic (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps something related to Lupus/Lupine such as Lupic/Lupii/Lupia? Nanonic (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Or going the other way - Canidae, Aureus (from Golden/Yellow), Cakalli (Albanian for Golden Jackal). Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Using something based on Lupus would have the advantage of easy derogatory nicknames: "Loops" (as in Fruit Loops) or "Loopies". Canidians? Nah, too friendly and apologetic. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Anthropomorphic wolves? How about "Lawrtals" or "Lartals" after Lawrence Talbot. Heh. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
1) Maybe something referencing the Thylacine (aka Tasmanian Tiger or Tasmanian Wolf). "The Thylacoid Empire - putting the Mars in Marsupial"
2) Its your call, but just because the book is about war needn't mean that the race has to have a warlike name. Presumably they don't spend all their time fighting. (And if they do, maybe they get a ephemistic name, like The Kindley Ones. Iapetus (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

another AMPAS membership question (actually two)[edit]

The 322-invitee list linked above mentions that 7 of the invitees were invited by more than one AMPAS branch, and have to choose which branch they want to join. How does that happen? Do people working in multiple fields apply for the branch they really want, plus one or more "backups"? Are some branch memberships more valuable or interesting than others? Do you get to go to different parties or get other benefits depending on which branch you're in, or is it just a matter of which Oscars you get to vote on? If someone got multiple invitations, does it become public later which one they accepted? If it matters, I'm thinking of Mathilde Bonnefoy who got invited by the Documentary and Film Editor branches. I updated her article about this but it seemed awkward to have to write up the details. And I'm wondering which invitation she's more likely to take.

Also, is it possible to switch branches after you're already a member, or become a member of more than one branch? E.g. Clint Eastwood started out as an actor and later became a director. I don't know if he was actually ever an Academy member in either branch, but imagine that he was originally in the actor branch. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually yet another question: do members have to pay dues, and how much are they? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent questions. (To which I have no answers.) However, you stated: "Do people working in multiple fields apply for the branch they really want, plus one or more 'backups'?" That's a good question. But, I imagine that there are cases where a person does not affirmatively apply at all, but simply gets invited. So, perhaps two branches (or more) extend an invitation to the person, and the person never applied at all to begin with. Maybe that's possible? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I got the impression from reading that you have to actually apply. Bonnefoy has never been nominated for an editing Oscar, so she would have had to round up two sponsors from the editing branch, which I suspect is less close-knit than the documentary branch. And I suspect that the editing branch is the one she really wanted, since she's worked on a lot of fiction films but has only been involved with a couple documentaries that I know of. One of them (Citizenfour, which won the documentary Oscar) was very significant but the other (the Invisibles segment) sounds sort of obscure. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Walkabout[edit]

What film stock was Walkabout shot on? The colours are beautiful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

According to IMDb, Eastmancolor. According to List of motion picture film stocks, the only Eastmancolor stock in use in 1971 was 5385/7385. However, this is a deduction based on unreliable data, not a definitive answer. Tevildo (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to add, it's just finished (I was watching it on telly) and the credits said Eastmancolor. Roeg is a master of colour of course, but there is something about the colour in some films from the late 60s, early 70s which I find particularly evocative. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Good question, to which I don't have an answer. Various sources refer to the quote, but without attempting to identify the narrator. I listened to the ending on youtube but couldn't pin the voice down. I'd say it was an "educated" Australian voice, probably a professional actor. Best I can do. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for trying. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't recognise it either. As Jack says, "educated" Australian voice (or possible a New Zealand one, for that matter). but other than that, I couldn't place it. Worth it to watch the, erm, scenery in that scene though :) Grutness...wha? 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

June 29[edit]

Shahid.net log in member pay?[edit]

If I log in via my Facebook account in order to watch videos on Shahid.net, will I have to pay for it or is it really free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.242 (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have not given them any means to receive money from you, the worst that could happen from logging in is that they tell you that you can't watch something. They appear to be owned by a legitimate company, so it should probably be safe to at least try. Facebook also requires companies to clarify what logging in will let them do with your Facebook account: being able to whatever is on your profile is not uncommon. Like other services, Shahid.net may try to show you advertisements before and during whatever you're watching to cover their costs.
I will note that Shahid.net blocked me from trying to watch anything because I'm in North America. They may also block your location, especially if you're using the IP addressed you used to ask your question. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

music intervals[edit]

moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#music intervals96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thirteenth chord inversions.png

Why is the 13th and 9th flat in the first inversion?96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

First, they're not. They're minor but they're natural. In the literal notation the flats are just someone's way to signal that the 9th and the 13th are minor, but that notation is ambiguous. The author of that image is User:Hyacinth. Second, this image is not used in the article you linked to but in Thirteenth. Third, music questions go to the Entertainment Reference Desk Contact Basemetal here 10:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to learn about music or to correct a single image? To do the former one might have to read about flats, minor, and chords.
For the latter, a flat means one should lower something a semitone. Anything minor has something lowered a semitone (major chord: C,E,G; minor chord: C,Eb,G. In semitones: 0,4,7; 0,3,7.), thus a flat may be used to indicate something is minor, and is, in at least one system of notation. See chord symbol.
For a metaphor, compare music notation to spelling in the English language (and many others), there may be historical explanations, but it still doesn't make sense.
Hyacinth (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


June 30[edit]

Britney Spears - Scandal[edit]

I remember that there was an old scandal (between 1997-2000 I think) of britney because she was topless in clip - I think the clip was "Don't Let Me Be the Last to Know". However I didn't find any newpaper on the internet, not in wikipedia - and felt hopeless - perhaps I wrong... I also remember that her mother sued the company because Spears was a teenage - Someone remember it? what was the song? The best would be a link to newspaper... --84.228.228.76 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-standard ways to qualify musical intervals?[edit]

I seem to remember reading (possibly in one of Rameau's own theoretical writings) that he proposed somewhere to call (what we call) a major 7th an augmented 7th. For consistency's sake the consequences would have to be (what we call) a minor 7th would have to be called just a 7th, or a possibly a perfect 7th ("une 7ème juste"), (what we call) a minor 2nd would have to be called a diminished 2nd and (what we call) a major 2nd would have to be called just a 2nd, or a perfect 2nd ("une 2nde juste"). But strangely I don't recall reading explicit statements to that effect.

So was it all a bad dream, or am I really remembering something?

Note that such a system (whether it was really proposed or used by anyone or was just a hallucination of mine) would be just as self-consistent as our usual system (the inversion of minor would be major, the inversion of diminished would be augmented, the inversion of perfect would be perfect, diminished would be one chromatic semitone below minor or perfect, augmented would be one chromatic semitone above major or perfect and diminished, minor, perfect, major, augmented would follow each other on the cycle of rising 5th). But in such a system only the 3rd and the 6th could be minor or major, all other intervals would be perfect (or diminished, augmented, etc.) So it wouldn't be enough to dismiss this on the grounds that Rameau couldn't have proposed such an absurd system. In fact as far as I can recall he justifies his proposal carefully. On the other hand that too could be part of a midsummer nightmare.

Note also that there already is an alternative system to our usual system that I have without any doubt seen used by some continental Europeans and that goes in the other direction: in that system (what we call) a perfect 4th is called a minor 4th, (what we call) an augmented 4th is called a major 4th, (what we call) a diminished 5th is called a minor 5th, (what we call) a perfect 5th is called a major 5th, and so on. That system too is completely coherent but there the only perfect interval is the unison, all other are either major or minor (or diminshed, augmented, etc.)

Does any of this ring a bell?

Contact Basemetal here 16:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Minor and major 4th (i.e. perfect and augmented 4th) were used by Mozart, as can be seen in a chart of intervals in Thomas Attwood's theoretical and compositional studies with him. However, he calls the diminished and perfect 5th respectively the false and true 5ths. The modification making them minor and major 5ths makes it more coherent, but I haven't seen it. If you find it, a link would be highly appreciated!
Calling the minor 7th a "perfect 7th" is a bit odd, to me. I'd prefer to let "minor 7th" denote the 12-ET interval, close to 9:5 (the 5-limit one) or 16:9 (the Pythagorean one), and let "perfect 7th" mean the harmonic seventh 7:4. But since 7-limit tuning mentions that Rameau considered 7:4 to be a dissonant interval, I have a hard time imagining why he would call it a perfect 7th, so I confess that I am at a loss. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Here, on p. 22 you can see the guy uses minor and perfect 5ths (for our diminished and perfect 5ths) and major and perfect 4ths (for our augmented and perfect 4ths). Actually in French they're not "perfect" but "true" ("juste"). So not exactly Mozart's system. Not exactly what I remembered and what you're asking a link for either. Yet for some reason that little work was one of the places I thought I remembered minor/major 5ths and major/minor 4ths. So this is not the link you wanted but it's going in the right direction Face-smile.svg I'll keep looking. I'm almost certain I've seen minor/major 4ths and minor/major 5ths, if not here (obviously) then elsewhere. As to Rameau like I said I am really not sure. From what I faintly remember he wanted to avoid having the augmented 7th ("septième superflue"? that would be ironic!) be the interval that's enharmonic to the 8ve because he was claiming that interval "doesn't exist" (?) and proposed renaming our major 7th into augmented 7th and that was his main motivation. One of the thing I seem to remember is that I came away thinking it was a "good" feature of this system that only the 3rd and the 6th could be major/minor. Note also what I remember is it was a speculative proposal, not the system he actually used. But all of this is so blurred that I really can't seriously affirm anything. Maybe one day I'll wade through "Traité de l'harmonie" and "Nouveau système" here to try and figure out what the hell it is I'm talking about. Contact Basemetal here 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: The observations in my first post about the coherence of those non-standard systems for qualifying musical intervals, the relation between them and the order of intervals on the circle of 5ths, etc only make sense if we're only talking Pythagorean intervals but those observations about coherence, etc are entirely mine, they don't belong to Rameau's discussion (or anyone else's). So it is entirely possible that certain proposals on qualifying musical intervals concern themselves with natural intervals that are outside the Pythagorean system just like you're suggesting. Contact Basemetal here 17:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Here you can read at the bottom of the page (which is p. 721 of the book): "La quinte diminuée se nomme quelquefois quinte mineure, et la quinte juste, quinte majeure". If you Google the equivalent of "major fifth" and "minor fifth" in continental European languages ("quinte majeure", "quinte mineure" in French, "große Quinte", "kleine Quinte" in German, etc) you may be able to find other examples. In any case that's how I located the link I've just given here. Of course you're bound to find relatively old sources as I believe nowadays the English usage has become pretty much universal ("quarte juste", "quarte augmentée", "quinte diminuée", "quinte juste" in French, "reine Quarte", "übermäßige Quarte", "verminderte Quinte", "reine Quinte" in German, and so on) Contact Basemetal here 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 1[edit]

Olympics opening and closing ceremonies[edit]

An odd question I've been musing about for a day or two... At Olympic opening ceremonies there is always some big artistic performance depicting the history of the games or the country which pas playing host - all practiced at the main stadium in secret for several days before the ceremony. All well and good - but there is often a similar, if smaller, performance at the closing ceremony (ISTR that Barcelona in the 1990s had a huge fire festival and all sorts of other stuff during their closing ceremony). How and where are these rehearsed? I can't see how they could be rehearsed at the main stadium, since it would be in use for athletics in the final days of an Olympics. I also can't see them being rehearsed before the games, leaving a gap of two and a half weeks before performance. Do they somehow find down-time at the main venue, e.g., late at night after the events have finished? Or is the rehearsal all done at other venues and then all the necessary equipment and props moved en masse before the closing ceremony (a logistics nightmare, I'd imagine)? Thanks in advance for any answers... Grutness...wha? 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

For the most recent one, see 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. "Rehearsals began in earnest in spring 2012 at an open-air site at Dagenham (the abandoned Ford plant)...Two full dress and technical rehearsals took place in the Olympic stadium on 23 and 25 July." Edit: oh wait, you're only asking about the closing ceremony. Scrub that, then. --Viennese Waltz 13:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
From 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony: " There had been around 15 rehearsals for the volunteers at the Three Mills Studio and at a full-scale site in Dagenham, East London." --Viennese Waltz 13:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
OK - cheers. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ape Ejaculation[edit]

(Question moved to science desk, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Ape_Ejaculation. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

What kind of computer did Jerry have in his apt. on Seinfeld?[edit]

20.137.7.64 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A mac of some sort, see here [1]. They say it was a Macintosh Performa, some other sources say it was a Macintosh SE. It seems like there were a few different Macs on the show, this page [2] lists several models used throughout the run. If you have a specific one in mind, someone here can probably identify it based on a picture and episode number. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I had no particular episode in mind, I just noticed last night that the background of my Roku had an image of Seinfeld's apartment in coordination with the show being promoted on one of the streaming channels, and I saw the computer, which made me wonder the question. Thanks. 20.137.7.64 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, then make sure you read the first link. Your Roku might have been showing the promotional Seinfeld apartment that Hulu made up recently, and for a while at least was showing the wrong computer (i.e. not one that was shown on the show), and instead had some generic 90's windows PC. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2[edit]

Mr. Pine[edit]

In the third minute of "Mr. Pine" by the first version of Renaissance, a track otherwise unfamiliar to me, there's a familiar melody played on organ. Is it reused in a later Renaissance track, maybe "Ashes Are Burning"? —Tamfang (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's used in "Running Hard", on the same album: Illusion. According to the article, the theme is based on Jehan Alain's Litanies pour orgue. (judge for yourself, but, admittedly, maybe I'm not exactly certain about which excerpt you mean). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. In "Mr. Pine", the melody I mean runs from 1:51 to 2:43; it's monophonic and slower than Litanies. — "Running Hard" is on Turn of the Cards, which I haven't heard in a while. —Tamfang (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Abdel-Kader Zaaf[edit]

Was cyclist Abdel-Kader Zaaf, who was riding in the 1950's a black or white. My second question is was he French or Algerian? My Third question is the who is first black African to participat or ride in Tour de France? My last question who is the first cyclist to ever compete in Tour de France?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.251.31 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Our French Wikipedia page on him says he was born in Algeria, but had French nationality. Photographs of him [3] [4] suggest he was dark-skinned, but whether he was "black African" (i.e., of sub-Saharan descent) seems difficult to say - more likely he was of Berber ancestry. By the way, he competed before 1950, in 1948 - but was eliminated after just one stage. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Women's Water Polo[edit]

I was interested to note that the British Women's Water polo team for the 2012 Olympics (Great Britain women's national water polo team) had no one in common with the team at Baku 2015 [5]. So how long is a typical national team member likely to be in the team?

And then I noticed that the ages of the 2012 team are about 8 years greater than that of the 2015 team, even though playing only 3 years apart. What is normal? -- SGBailey (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but given that they are that much younger, I would assume that the water polo federation is not taking the European games very seriously and sending a youth/B team. This is happening in many sports. Fgf10 (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

July 3[edit]

Variety Club of Great Britain awards[edit]

The Variety Club of Great Britain (the link directs, not especially helpfully, to an article about the overarching international charity) used to hold an annual luncheon where a range of awards were handed out - here is the 1964 list, for instance. The organisation was apparently set up in Britain in 1948 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6526653/Variety-Club-of-Great-Britain-celebrates-diamond-jubilee.html - but, at some point, the awards ceremony seems to have ceased. Here is a picture of a 1980 award. Does anyone know any more about the history of these awards? More particularly, does anyone have a list of the winners? The obits for Val Doonican say that he won the award for BBC TV Personality - one of the Variety Club awards - three times, but I can't find any independent verification of that. At the time - presumably up to the 1980s - the awards were quite widely reported in the UK, but they have now been superseded by the Brits, BAFTA, soap awards, etc., etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest one I can find is 2010 - this is the IMDb entry for Channel 5's broadcast of it. Searching for "variety club showbiz awards 2011" (and subsequent years) doesn't come up with anything useful, but neither have I been able to find any official mention of their discontinuance. Tevildo (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What an interesting question. I haven't found the answer, but I have found the website for the Royal Variety Charity, and I wonder if they will be able to point you in the right direction if you email them? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we know if the Royal Variety Charity is the same as Variety, the Children's Charity? I suspect they are separate organisations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they're different. The Royal Variety Charity used to be called the Entertainment Artistes' Benevolent Fund, according to this Rojomoke (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the "Showbiz Awards" were awarded by the children's charity (under their former name, "The Variety Club of Great Britain"). The artiste's charity is best known for the Royal Variety Performance. The children's charity is the one to contact regarding the awards. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that the answers to my questions might only be found by emailing one of these people. As Tevildo says, the awards were most recently called the Variety Club Showbiz Awards. According to their 2011 annual report, "2012 has started with a huge change in the branding of the charity and we have changed the name from Variety Club to Variety the Children’s Charity. A plan has been developed to reposition the charity in a way that plays to its strengths, improve the branding by removing the word Club from the title and updating the corporate identity...." It also says: "A vigorous drive for cost effectiveness led us to review a number of events which have become a traditional part of our fundraising year but which were no longer delivering revenue at the level previously enjoyed. These less viable functions are being dropped in 2012..." So, that probably gives an end date for the awards themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What is this music?[edit]

Dear Wikipedians,

A BBC4 series on forensic history uses a piece of music as a 'theme'. I assume it is not an original composition as the credits show no composer. It is most obvious from 0:42 to 1:26 on link. Can anyone tell me what it is, and where I can find a longer version? Many thanks. 92.25.175.235 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've to be in the UK to play that video. I hope someone in the UK can help you. You could also ask the BBC to stop doing shit like this. Contact Basemetal here 22:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Not true, Basemetal. I just watched the first couple of minutes and I'm in New Zealand. The music does sound familiar, not I can't place it, sorry. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Lucky duck. Their system detects your IP address, and if it's outside the UK, you're out of luck. Such is my fate. I have heard that the New Zealanders are more English than the English, but that's an absurd basis on which to run a file sharing system. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
More likely not luck. BBC's iPlayer geolocation is fairly effective and more likely to block someone who should have access then the reverse. I expect Grutness is either with an ISP who offers Global Mode which isn't disappearing until September [6] and it was enabled by default, or someone in charge of the internet connection enabled it. Or alternatively someone in charge of their internet connection or browser set it up to get round the iPlayer geoblock. In any case, you're right the vast majority of people outside the UK are not going to be able to watch the video. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 4[edit]