Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 January 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Entertainment desk
< January 22 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 24 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 23[edit]

Questions on baseball's 1981 season[edit]

1. If a team had [won] both halves of the strike-shorteened 1981 season (as Oakland almost did), would they have received a bye? Or, would they have had to play the second place team in their division?

2. I presume if two teams had tied for the 2nd half, but neither won the first, they'd have had a playoff to see who went to the division series. But, what if 2 teams had tied for the 2nd half, but the first team already had won the first half? Would they just have the division series, or hold a playoff to see if that first half winner got a bye?

Thanks. (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure they had contingencies, but I cannot find them. Other leagues in baseball and other sports do play similar split-season schedules. The Southern League (baseball) does that. See this page. If the same team wins both halves, then their opponent is determined by the second-best season long schedule. Presumably, had the same thing happened in 1981, then something similar would have been done in MLB as well. Baseball Bugs may have more info on this. --Jayron32 21:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Some more. Our article states (entirely uncited) at 1981 Major League Baseball season that had the same team won both halves, a "wild card team" would have been chosen, i.e. the next best overall record. So there ya go. No idea where that comes from. Also, in 1892 in baseball it notes that the National League enacted a split-season schedule and played a best-of-nine game series at the end to determine a champion. No notes there account for the contingency had the same team won both halves; however knowing the general attitude towards post-season play in general at the time, they may have just declared such a team champion and not played any playoff series at all. The NFL didn't have a formal championship game until 1933, indeed for most of the first several seasons, the champion was declared by a year-end poll. --Jayron32 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; much appreciated. (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The 1981 article doesn't exactly say that the next best overall record would be the other qualifier, it simply says a wild card team would be chosen, and leaves it up to the wild card article to explain it. The best overall record would cite the original plan, not the final decision. The Sporting News Official Baseball Guide for 1982 has a lengthy discussion of the strike at the front of the book, and on page 13 it discusses post-season scenarios. If a second-half division winner was the same as the first-half division winner, the original plan was for the team with the next-best overall record to be added to the playoffs. After play resumed, some club officials raised the point that a strong runner-up team could lose late-season games to the first-half winner and actually help itself get into the playoffs by ensuring that the same team won both halves. So the plan was changed so that if the same team won both halves in a division, the second-place team in the second-half only would be the other playoff qualifier in the division. The issue proved moot as the second-half winners were all different from the first-half winners. Unfortunately, the Reds with the best NL record overall, and the Cardinals with the best NL East record overall, both failed to make the playoffs, having failed to win either half. Regarding 1892, Jerry Lansche's 1991 book, Glory Fades Away, which covers the 19th century World Series', indicates on page 207 that if Boston had won both halves, they would have been declared the champions. (That doesn't preclude the league deciding to have a playoff anyway, as it would have meant some more bucks.) Boston easily won the first half but then some players were cut and Cleveland took the lead in the second half. The key statement is that fans accused Boston of playing poorly in the second half "in order to force a playoff at the end of the season." As it was, Boston finished only 3 games back of Cleveland and quickly rubbed them out in the "World's Championship Series", such as it was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity[edit]

First of all, please tell me that is this the true story ? Because it seems to be that it is after watching it. Also i have watched the original version which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article. But my friend says that its not the original version and she saw the original one in which when Katie was moving back and forth after she murdered Mickah and there was a demon on her shoulders. Plz tell me if somebody knows about it. What actually happened and which is the original version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article found at Paranormal Activity (film)? It's a movie, with actors and a director and film budget. It's not "true", it's fictional, like Godzilla. Are you trying to figure out which version was filmed first, or what? Matt Deres (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohh Man!!!!!!! Everybody thinks here that its true and based on a true story becuase it also says in the end that its is to dedicate these two people. And they have also thanked their families. Can u again check it plz .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Check what again? There's no such things as demons or ghosts (or magical elves with pointy hats), which should be the first clue to anybody that the film is completely fictitious. Those people were actors, as detailed in the article. Matt Deres (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Lots of movies prominently claim "This is based on a true story" and are 100% completely made up. The statement "This is based on a true story" in a fictional movie is just as fictional as anything else in the movie. See also Fargo (film), which was also not a true story despite prominently stating that it was, and The Blair Witch Project, which Paranormal Activity shamelessly rips off, right down to the false claims of "We swear this is all true". If you are seeing it on a movie screen, it is all made up. Even the stuff based on documented historical events and figures is usually "fictionalized" to make the movie more interesting. And Paranormal Activity isn't even that kind of movie. It is 100% completely and totally made up. --Jayron32 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(double edit conflict)The real Rain Man wasn't ever in an institution, so what makes you think that some simple event that has been turned - by legend - into a ghost story is any more real? Holywood doesn't work that way, except in the very rare case like Apollo 13 Hollywood's job is to fantasize things to draw audiences. So, even if the movie was based on something like a murder (I don't really care to check the link, I don't like horror stuff), any demonic activity is fictionalized. (Although I do believe there is a spiritual realm, they don't act like they do in movies.)And, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't even based on anything.
As to why it'd dedicated to people, there are lots of reasons. Special help in making the movie, friends who passed away during it, lots of stuff. (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Even The X-Files started with "Based on a true story", but Chris Carter specifically said that there was no real story it was based on, he just thought it would be a nice effect to to say that it was. APL (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There are alternative endings to the movie, so there's a possibility that there's a version with the demon on her shoulder, but I haven't seen the alternate endings, so I can't say that for sure. Woogee (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Naturally I have to challenge Jayron32's provocative statement, "If you are seeing it on a movie screen, it is all made up." The Andy Warhol filmography article lists several films that defy this, such as his anti-film, Sleep. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The key part of "based on a true story" is "based on". Like the James Bond movies that were "based on" Ian Fleming novels... "based on" in the sense that they had the same titles. "Based on" leaves a world of flexibility for the filmmakers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well at the end of the movie they have thanked the families of katie and Mikah and also the police dept for providing the real footage and they have dedicated to the movie to katie and mikah. So it seems to me that its the true story. Isn't it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. But the informative responses already given to you don't seem to have changed your mind, so you are free to believe whatever you wish. --LarryMac | Talk 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that even Plan 9 from Outer Space was based on "sworn testimony". As Criswell said, "Can you prove it didn't happen?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RTL 3[edit]

What is “RTL 3”? -- (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I googled [RTL 3] and apparently they're speakers made by a company called TDL. However, there seem to be a number of unrelated companies called TDL. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which German television station could be called “RTL 3”? -- (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're talking about TV. There is a link to a German TV station from the RTL disambiguation page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
RTL Group lists several "RTL n" items, but not a 3. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The most likely candidate to be the answer to your question is the terrestrial network RTL Television, which is the most watched private and free-to-air channel in Germany (it has about 90% the audience share of perennial leader Das Erste). Other RTL Group channels broadcasting in the country include RTL II, Super RTL, RTL Shop, VOX, and n-tv. I believe all are broadcast via digital terrestrial television. Obviously, none have the number 3. As far as I know, when one refers to the "third programme" they are usually referring to the regional channels produced by the members of the ARD. Xenon54 / talk / 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A German blog says that the RTL Group intended to rename VOX to RTL 3 when they acquired it in 1999. They did not, in the end, as VOX had gained some recognition under this name in the meantime. I have no idea if this is correct. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup 1990 and 1994[edit]

What would be happened if the winner of the FIFA World Cup 1990 was not West Germany, but Czechoslovakia, East Germany, the Soviet Union, the United States, or Yugoslavia instead? -- (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your 1st, 2nd, and 4th questions (was Yugoslavia still competing as such by 1990?) lead me to believe you want to know if that would keep the countries from breaking apart or East Germany from getting back with the West over the next years. I doubt it. While civic pride in an area like sports does help, there are far too many larger forces at work. Look at how nations that co-operate well in the Olympics can manage to do so while not being able to stand each other in other areas. there have been attempts to get the gernal citizens of, say, Ireland and Northern Ireland to co-operate on some levels, but I don't know that we've seen that this has helped the regional governments to stop hating each other so much.
Your inclusion of the United States inthis question makes me wonder what the purpose could be for asking, though, becuase I don't see how tht culdhave changed anything. the Untied States had won the America's Cup race for decades, and then Roger(?) Connor's big win that brought the Cup back to the U.S. int he late '80s was a big thing. But, that hasn't made sailing any mroe popular in the U.S.. (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dennis Conner. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's it, thanks. Well...I'll use my age as an excuse. :-) At least I didn't say Sarah Connor. :-) (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A winning country no longer existing two years later would give a ticklish problem to the organisers when deciding if/to whom to hand the automatic qualification for the next tournament that came with the win. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Had the United States won the World Cup in 1990, there would only have been one spot in the 1994 tournament for the host and for the defending champion. One extra team would have been chosen from the regional qualifying pools. In the cases of countries that ceased to exist between 1990 and 1994 because of political events in Europe, FIFA considers that they all have principal successor states: West Germany and East Germany became Germany, Czechoslovakia became the Czech republic (with Slovakia considered a new team), the Soviet Union became Russia (with all the other former Soviet republics becoming new teams) and the large Yugoslavia becoming the smaller Yugoslavia (i.e., Serbia and a few other parts, which became fewer and fewer over the years). In fact, West Germany won the 1990 Cup (East Germany participated unsuccessfully in the UEFA qualifying round), and (unified) Germany got to play in the 1994 cup without needing to qualify. The successor country would have received that spot had one of the other countries mentioned won in 1990. --Xuxl (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What would be happened if South Korea and Japan merged into a single country in 2001? -- (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)