Entertainment desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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.

May 17[edit]

No-no-no-no?[edit]

Has there ever been an Major League Baseball game in which both pitchers pitched a no-hitter? Or one pitching a no-hitter and another pitching a perfect game? 71.146.10.213 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A double no-hitter - for 9 innings - occured on May 2, 1917. Fred Toney was pitching for the Cincinnati Reds, and Hippo Vaughn for the Chicago Cubs. The game went into extra innings and Vaughn allowed a run on two hits in the top of the 10th inning. Toney then pitched a hitless bottom of the 10th and is officially credited with a no-hitter. There were a couple of perfect games that were broken up in extra innings (by Harvey Haddix on May 26, 1959 and Pedro Martinez on June 3, 1995), but their opponents only pitched shutout ball through 9 innings, not a no-hitter or a perfect game. --Xuxl (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hendley pitched a 1-hitter for the Cubs against the Dodgers in 1965. The one hit he gave up did not figure in the scoring. Meanwhile, Sandy Koufax pitched a perfect game for the Dodgers.[1] This remains the fewest hits by both teams for a regulation 9-inning game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is the highest number of innings thrown by an MLB starting pitcher in a game? 71.146.10.213 (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Almanac says 26 for the NL, 24 for the AL. The really astounding things about these records is that the NL's Leon Cadore and Joe Oeschger battled each other for 26 innings (nearly three complete games), only to have it end in a tie due to darkness, while the AL's Jack Coombs and Joe Harris pitched into the 24th inning before Coombs emerged victorious, and the loser threw 20 consecutive scoreless innings (the slacker)! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another amazing thing about that 26-inning game[2] is that it ran 3 hours and 50 minutes. There are 9-inning games that run about that long now. In those days, games typically started at 3 in the afternoon. So it was approaching 7 in the evening, and they called it on account of darkness. Supposedly both pitchers asked the umpire for one more inning, and he refused - and later supposedly said that he didn't want to see either of them lose it. It was May 1, and if it had been played closer to the solstice, maybe it could have gone 30 or 35. That was a bad game to be having a slump. A couple of guys went 0-for-10 and one went 0-for-11. That'll make a serious dent in a batting average. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to take off on a tangent, games almost called on account of darkness reminds me of one of the most amazing home runs in history. Apropos of nothing. Just popped into my head, and thought I'd share. --Jayron32 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an original track?[edit]

The trailer for 'Cool it' has some pretty nifty music. In particular a track that starts around the 0:52 mark and lasts most of the trailer. Was this written for the film or is it an existing piece of music, and in either case is there anywhere I can find a copy of it? Trailer can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtrIJDwlCs8, many thanks in advance. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hertha BSC Berlin and Fortuna Düsseldorf[edit]

Will the 2012–13 Fußball-Bundesliga play with 17 or 19 clubs? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There will be 18 clubs, but first the German Football Federation (DFB) has to rule on Hertha Berlin's appeal of its tie game with Düsseldorf on may 15th. Either the appeal is dismissed, in which case Düsseldorf is promoted to the Bundesliga, with Berlin relegated, or the appeal is upheld, and then - most likely - the deciding game will be replayed on neutral grounds. After which only one of the two clubs will gain a spot in the Bundesliga next year. The appeal was only filed yesterday and a ruling is expected Friday according to various news sources. --Xuxl (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Me by Dean Martin and covered by Bob Dylan[edit]

I'm in the process of updating all the files in my audio media collection. Bob Dylan covered a song called "Return to Me" for The Sopranos soundtrack CD Peppers & Eggs. I also have an earleir recording of Dean Martin singing it, labeled with the italian "Ritorna Mi." I'm on a hunt to find out the very original artist to have recorded this song. I want to know if Dean Martin was the first artist to record it or if he was covering it too. I include that kind of information in my media organization.

However, I am very surprised to find no article about the song. Searching for "Return to Me" connects to an article about a movie of the same name. Searching by "Return to Me (song)" turns up nothing. My other main source for finding information on song media, Allmusic, doesn't yield satisfactory results either. A broad Google search was extremely cumbersome.

My first question. Why is there no article about this song? It seems to me to be wiki-worthy, especially in light of many song articles I find that seem to be much more obscure. Was there an article that was deleted for some reason?

My second question. Can anyone locate the information I need on who the original artist was? Or suggest a search method with a finer point than Google? Thanks.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site [3] lists the composers as Danny DiMinno and Carmen Lombardo, and claims it was originally written for Martin. Allmusic mentions DiMinno as the composer. The supposed Italian title (Ritorna Mi) does not sound like correct Italian to me (and google has very few results for what should be a standard phrase), so it could be fake Italian, --Xuxl (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the composer info on Allmusic, but Allmusic doesn't necessarily contain original recording artist verification - at least not easily. It just seemed to me to be some Italian Standard that was adapted for Dean. And yes, I also think "Ritorna Mi" (or Ritorna Me, as I also see it) could be a "popularized" version of pseudo-Italian for entertainment purposes. Medleystudios72 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Italian is "Ritorna a me" and through elision (or synalepha if you will) it's sung as "Ritorn' a me". Deor (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RPG[edit]

I'm wondering, can a game like Myst be considered an RPG? since you play the role of a particular character in order to complete the game. My friend argues that the only things that can be called RPGs are games that involve skill points, health bars and fighting, and whilst I accept that this is the standard definition, I countered that the name itself doesn't rule out a wide range of other games in theory, if someone wanted to make that case. I have an actual logical basis from semantics for saying that, but he refuses to accept, or even listen to, that point, simply because it isn't done in standard practice. So, which of us is right here?

Kitutal (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wondering if I'd get a different answer asking under language than entertainment, since it's sort of both... Kitutal (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can call anything you want by any name, but if you want other people to understand or agree with you, it is best to use words as other people will understand them. Most people would not consider Myst to be an RPG, but rather a graphic adventure game with strong elements of hidden object games. What makes an RPG an RPG is primarly character development, for whatever that means within the gaming system. That is, as you play the game your character develops skills and "levels" and advances throughout the game. Without the possibility of character advancement, a game is just an adventure game. In Myst, you don't have a character that acquires skills and advancements. You simply click and drag on objects on the screen to solve brain teasers, solving said brain-teasers advances the plot of the story. --Jayron32 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "role" means you are playing as a character other than yourself. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. makes sense. so there's no actual rule that it has to involve fighting and such like? Kitutal (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote this response when original question was posted at Humanities desk. Pertinent to your followup question too, I think.

I'd consider Myst to be something more like a puzzle game (despite that article's main focus on e.g. Minesweeper). The distinction between an RPG and anything else doesn't have to do with experience points, leveling up, or the presence/absence of fighting, but rather with the characterization of the game's protagonist (hence "role playing"). In an RPG, the most important factor is that the character grows and changes over the course of gameplay/the story. The player plays the role of the character and in the course of the quest that character changes significantly as a result of the player's actions. In something like Myst, by contrast, the protagonist is extremely hazily-defined, and all of the characterization is centered on the book-writer and his family. All of the problem solving is focused on the goal of solving riddles and bringing the story of the others (not the player) in the game to a close. The protagonist in Myst is there simply so the player can be in the world of the game, not as a real character. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the new question regarding fighting: I don't think fighting per se is part of the definition; however it is quite hard to find a single RPG which doesn't include fighting or violence of some sort, if only because fighting provides a convenient way to build skills and gain levels: kill easy baddies, get more skills, get to kill harder baddies, rinse, repeat. However, there are fighting games which are not RPGs, and there are also character driven games that are not RPGs. The deal with there not being an RPG that involves no fighting at all has less to do with fighting being an integral part of an RPG and more to do with fighting being an integral part of gaming, for the most part. You can, I suppose, create an RPG which has all of the elements of an RPG without any physical confrontation, violence, or fighting at all, but who is going to buy it. --Jayron32 18:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Jayron's point. Basically you could have an "RPG" that consisted entirely of making non-violent choices, but in practice it would take an extremely gifted writer to make that game not utterly boring (gifted enough to make a living writing novels and hence mostly not working for game developers, though as games become a more and more accepted form of storytelling art, I'm sure we'll see some games trend this way). Involving fighting in the game is the surest way to keep the player's interest up. Character-driven games that are any good have traditionally always involved fighting. I could see someone making a game in the Leisure Suit Larry mode, but there's only so much variation available (and skill required for gameplay!) in that format and I can't see it making the big bucks that you get from something like the Fable series (chopping heads with a sword > getting shot down at bars). And how many times are you going to play a mystery game once you already know the answer? Including violence and making its application a matter of skill ensures variation each time you play. As far as I know nobody's done this, but I see a "standard" RPG's skills sheet / strength chart as almost the kind of thing where you could make a short video of the numbers rising and put, say, Eye of the Tiger on the soundtrack and use it as a gorgeously nerdy training montage. Basically it's a dry, mathematical way to help you visualize how far your character's come since Level 1, how much he's grown since he got his ass kicked by the gang of trolls and swore revenge, and how close to ready he feels to take on the dreaded Rabbit of Caerbannog. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about the Sims? Kitutal (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never played the Sims, so correct me if I'm way off base, but that's really more of a God game I think. See also Social simulation game. While you can develop the characters/lives of the people you control, it's in very general terms and there isn't really a single main protagonist who is more important than all others (and who the player "becomes" or pretends to be in order to play the game properly (immersively). An RPG intends the player to identify strongly with the protagonist, to feel what he feels and share in his triumphs - while the Sims intends the player to play around with the lives of a bunch of different people for no pre-defined purpose. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Many of the classic early-ish computer RPGs (Wasteland, The Bard's Tale, etc.) involved playing as a party of adventurers, of which there was no clear protagonist. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Sims (while not SimCity or others from the genre) has RPG-elements, but you couldn't primarily describe it as an RPG. After all, characters do have character traits, they do level up and gain skills, which is an RPG element, but as noted, it is primarily a social-simulation mixed with a God-game. --Jayron32 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reference this, but I don't think playing a role is enough to make an RPG. Like Jayron said, to be understood in discussions with others, you have to apply the industry understanding of what "RPG" means, even if it is pretty vague and flexible. You can't apply semantic logic, even if it technically makes sense. After all, you are playing a role outside of yourself in any game where the protagonist is named. Super Mario Bros. has you playing as Mario. Sonic has you playing as the titular hedgehog. Neither can be mistaken as RPGs. In the Sims, or simcity, or puzzle games, you aren't playing a role. You are you, explicitly controlling the little people on screen, so there is no role to be played. So while you are right, OP, that the name suggest flexibility, the truth is that for clarity's sake you should think of the term "RPG" as three letters that don't stand for anything anything other than what the standard definition says it is. Mingmingla (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Womens' chess[edit]

Ive always wondered where the outrage from feminists and others was about this. While I'll concede that it does take a certain degree of physical stamina to endure the mental rigors of top-level chess, it has to be at least 95%, if not more, mental. Chess is, for all intents and purposes, a mental sport. Yet men and women usually play in separate tournaments. Furthermore, the standards to become a Grandmaster are considerably lower for women. Doesn't this smack of sexism? Isn't this basically saying that women-generally speaking-can't play chess as well as men? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same situation as in physical sports, where men and women are prevented from competing. Female players are not forbidden or dissuaded from participating in regular chess competitions. However, there is a much smaller pool of female players, and as a result only a few women have risen to the highest levels. Women's chess gives prominence to female players, which presumably encourages more women to learn the game. As for why so few women learn chess in the first place, one can only speculate. LANTZY ^TALK 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what about my point about female Grandmasters having lower standards than their male counterparts? Is making it easier for a woman to become a GM meant to encourage more women to pick up the game? That to me seems like making women eligible for Mensa with a lower IQ score than that required of men, which I think would be insulting to most self-respecting women. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify one point. There is a Woman Grandmaster (WGM) title that has lower requirements than the regular Grandmaster (GM) title, but some women obtain the same GM title as men do, meeting the same requirements. See FIDE titles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as I understand it, only 3 women (the Polgar sisters, and one other whom I can't remember) hold a full-fledged GM title. Of course I could be wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides two Polgar sisters, there are Hou Yifan, Alexandra Kosteniuk, Xu Yuhua, Antoaneta Stefanova, Zhu Chen, Xie Jun, Maia Chiburdanidze, Nona Gaprindashvili, Koneru Humpy and probably more. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaprindashvili was the one I couldn't remember. The others must have reached this status somewhat recently. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right - it was later. Other women who are full-fledged GMs include Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant, Viktorija Cmilyte, Pia Cramling, Nana Dzagnidze, and Monika Socko and there must be others. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And some more are: Ju Wenjun, Dronavalli Harika, Nadezhda Kosintseva, Tatiana Kosintseva, Marie Sebag, and Kateryna Lahno. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "grandmaster" doesn't have any absolute meaning. It refers only to the relative skill of a player compared to other players at a particular moment in history. When the average skill level rises or falls, so does the threshold of being a grandmaster. Once you divide the players into different groups according to arbitrary (non-chess-related) differences, you create different sets of statistics and different criteria for grandmastership. In principle, you can divide the players into any number of demographics and determine a grandmaster for each demographic: Jewish grandmasters, Texan grandmasters, lesbian grandmasters, etc. And if you compared these various grandmasters, some would be much stronger players than others, for a variety of historical reasons. The Jewish grandmaster would almost certainly beat the Texan grandmaster. This course of events would not be "insulting" to Texans, and it wouldn't say anything about the inherent ability of Texans to play chess. LANTZY ^TALK 02:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree completely, but that is an interesting point. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much about arbitrary comparisons. What you say may be true, but if more were required for a Jew to reach full-fleged GM status than a Texan goy, I'd bet there would be outrage. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. My point is simply that the designation is arbitrary, because the average skill level of any given population is also arbitrary. There is no way of determining "absolute skill" in chess. If there were, then it might happen that no human being deserves to be called a grandmaster. It's a bit like the Oscars or the Nobel Prize. They give a prize out every year, but the skill level is different every year, so designations like "Nobellist" and "Oscar-winner" have no absolute meaning. LANTZY ^TALK 02:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel prizes and Oscars are awarded based on people's opinions. In chess there are objective ratings as well as direct competitions with other players. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my use of the phrase "a bit like". These things are similar in that the designations are relative, based on the competition at a particular moment. The average skill level of chess players varies over time, just as the quality of films differs from one year to the next. In neither case do the honorees achieve an absolute, changeless standard of excellence. LANTZY ^TALK 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a GM title is nothing like a Nobel prize or an Oscar award. GM titles are based on objective critera whereas the others are subjective. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]