Revision as of 19:44, 14 June 2014

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/E

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 4

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral -- Is there an historically accurate movie?

In all the movies I've seen, details are often wrong and some "facts", plot points and characters are complete fabrications. I assume this was to make the movie more interesting but the real-life events seem more than compelling enough to make a great movie. I'm left wondering if, aside from an actual documentary, a movie has ever been made that accurately depicts the events surrounding the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral? --William Thweatt 06:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear WilliamThweatt. I am a historian and a practitioner of historical martial arts since twenty years. I have never seen a single movie in my entire life which was even a bit historically accurate (the portrayal of the medieval period for example is shockingly bad). I do not think that there is a movie of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral that even comes close to a realistic representation (even most documentaries feature more myths than actual facts). The best thing would be if you could read books and documents that were written by eyewitnesses.--178.195.94.230 (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with historical films is that most mainstream screenplays are written to a formula, the three-act structure, but historical events don't necessarily fit that structure, so they're altered until they do. Studios will also want there to be a clear hero the audience can identify with, whose motivation is personal and emotional, a villain, a romantic subplot, and a certain amount of suspense, action and excitement - all the things they know audiences respond to. If they can get an explosion or two in there, they will, no matter if it's set in the stone age. They don't want to depict historically accurate attitudes that conflict with modern attitudes - sexism, racism and so on - so they'll give the hero a black friend or add a female character who's as much of a fighter as any of the men, even if they have to invent such a character. Lastly, they'll want a big-name star to play the lead, and stars often demand scripts be changed to make their characters look better and give them more screen time. So the chances of ending up with a historically accurate screenplay at the end of all that are pretty slim. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a historically accurate movie, period. If you want accuracy you need to read, and be critically selective about what you read too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A crucial thing about the real Gunfight at the O.K. Corral is that the event itself is generally agreed to have lasted only about 30 seconds. That is how gunfights generally are - extremely brief. But that would make for a very poor climax to a film. Long action sequences are currently the fashion, but even when they're not, audiences need to be given time to see what's going on, rather than the smoke and confusion of everybody moving and shooting pretty much simultaneously. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

An early John Wayne movie (Stagecoach ?) features such a gunfight. The two people draw, one is shot dead immediately, and slumps over. Nobody does somersaults while dodging bullets and flying through a window, and, once shot, that person doesn't fly backwards 20 feet as if they had been hit by a truck. It's odd to watch it, because it's so different from what we've come to expect from Hollywood. (There are also many other oddities in that movie, from a lack of any close-ups to John Wayne's hat looking more like something the Pilgrims might have worn to the wagon train being dirty, not the spotless ones we see in later films.)

There are options to make a gunfight last longer on screen, without fictionalizing it. First, there's slow motion, then you can show the gunfight from multiple POV's, in turn. Also, if there's disagreement over the historical facts, you can show each version.

Dialog is a problem though. It's quite rare that we have enough dialog recorded in diaries and such to make a full movie. So then, that means they either have a lack of dialog, maybe just a narrator explaining the known facts, or they make it up. Also, some words and expressions used then might not make any sense now, so such dialog would need explaining to a modern audience.

I bet Ric Burns and Ken Burns could make a realistic documentary, as they did in The Civil War. During that they had voice actors read lots of soldiers' and wives' letters, complete with appropriate accents, and displayed photographs from the events. The lack of sound they fixed by adding period music and they created motion by cutting out the foreground of pics and moving it relative to the background. Note that while all this helps to some extent, it's still nowhere near as exciting as the typical Hollywood movie. Such is the price of realism. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I almost never watch TV, preferring to wait for Netflix, so I don't know: has there been a backlash against the tic of panning/zooming on still photographs? —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not backlash exactly, but I saw a funny parody of it. I think it was a tampon commercial supposedly made by them, with the same slow panning pics and sad violin music playing as a woman read her letter (about tampons) in a thick Southern accent. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tamfang:, that effect is referred to as the Ken Burns effect. Just in case you needed a name to Google for. Dismas| 19:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

They did what they could, as film footage of the Civil War is hard to find. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Oh, did most of the Civil War newsreels rot or something? </sarcasm>

They did one of the things that they could. Another thing they could do is present still pictures in the way that we somehow tolerate in other media, rather than go out of their way to remind us with every damn shot that they can move the pictures. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think part of their intent was to bring us close to the picture, to get a better sense of the person or place than you can get from seeing just the whole picture at once. Keep in mind that this was well before big-screen TVs were common. As regards the newsreels, you were supposed to say, "Movies weren't invented yet!" and I was going to say "That's why they're hard to find." :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone I knew who was a history buff thought Tombstone (film) was the most accurate portrayal they had seen, especially in terms of capturing the gunfight itself. By contrast, an otherwise really good film called My Darling Clementine has the gunfight extraordinarily different from how the real thing went down. Regarding documentaries, several years ago on the History Channel there was a micro-study of how the gunfight happened, or likely happened based on known facts. This included narration and re-enactors. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs. I guess Tombstone is a close as I'll get. And I agree, My Darling Clementine, although mostly fiction, was a great film. It ranks among my favorites of all time.--William Thweatt 19:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Back in the early 1970s David L. Wolper produced a series titled Appointment with Destiny. At the time it was praised for their attempts at historical accuracy. Ongoing research can mean that "what was accurate then might not be now" so it may be out-of-date. Here is a link to the OK Corral episode. I haven't seen it in more than 30 years but it may be available on the interwebs somewhere. MarnetteD | Talk 17:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everybody. Makes sense, especially Nicknack's take on it. I'm a big U.S. history buff, especially the Civil War era and the (historically accurate events of the) Old West. I'm also, probably not coincidentally, a big fan of Westerns. I've read much of the contemporary source material and history, including our own terribly long Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, as well as Stuart N. Lake's (mostly fictional) biography of Wyatt Earp and seen My Darling Clementine, Tombstone, and Wyatt Earp, among others (wasn't aware of the Appointment with Destiny episode though). I'm hoping to share this passion with, or maybe even transmit it to, my children. But it seems they can't sit still long enough to read a book that doesn't have either a boy wizard, zombies or a crossbow-wielding teenager in it. I was thinking maybe a good film might spark some interest.--William Thweatt 19:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The affliction of the video-game age. Short attention span. Our generation was more into stories than non-stop action. The thing about the OK Corral story is not just the gunfight itself, but also the backstory of the characters and the moral ambiguity of most everyone involved. By contrast, it's hard to see any deeper meaning in The Transformers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Pro/Antagonist never meet

In The Fifth Element, Gary Oldman and Bruce Willis' characters never meet or directly interact. Yet they are the antagonist and protagonist. And, if I remember correctly, Mila Jovovich's character never meets Oldman's either. Is there an industry term for this and can you name any other examples of this either in books or movies? Dismas| 19:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to say just exactly who the tagonists in Rebecca are. The title character Rebecca (the first Mrs De Winter) never appears, having died before the book started, and consequently never meets the main active female character, the second Mrs De Winter (the Joan Fontaine character in the movie). Which of these women is the protagonist? The most antagonistic character in the book - one of the most maleficent in all literature - is the housekeeper Mrs Danvers, but that doesn't necessarily make her the antagonist. She did know both the Mesdames de Winter, of course, but we never see her communicating with the first one, because, as I say, Rebecca's a prehumous character. Then there's Max de Winter, who is more powerful than his second wife (something the early critics failed to pick up on), but was apparently under the thumb from his first. Such a fascinating interplay of character structures. -- Jack of Oz 20:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Frodo Baggins and Sauron never actually meet. --Jayron32 21:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In the movies From Russia With Love and Thunderball, Bond never meets Ernst Stavro Blofeld, aka "Number 1".

( additionally in From Russia With Love, Bond also doesn't meet Kronsteen, the Russian chessmaster. )

90.244.129.56 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Depending on what you mean by "meet," IIRC (and as far as my dad can remember, too), Kirk and Khan are never in the same room in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, though they do communicate by viewscreen. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not aware of any such term, industry or otherwise, for this specific dramatic archetype, and I'd be surprised to learn one existed, given it's a rather specific scenario unlikely to necessitate a go-to shorthand. At the same time, it's not all that much of a rarity -- plenty of stories feature adversaries (or individuals working at cross purposes) who never physically cross paths, whether that means they are unaware of one-another or utilize intermediaries or some other remote antagonism. In this case, even though Oldman's character, Zorg, never occupies the same room as Willis' (Korbin Dallas, AKA Space John McClane), Zorg nonetheless directs every element of conflict in the plot (though a pawn himself). In fact, the two nearly come face-to-face and only miss doing so by a mater of a few seconds after Oldman's character exits a hallway in one direction even as Bruce Willis enter the scene by exiting an elevator. And this immediately follows the scene, which you must have forgotten, in which Oldman's character shoots Jovovich's half to death, so he did in fact interact directly with the other protagonist. The primary villain being the head of a vastly powerful and innately dangerous organization who works initially or entirely through lieutenants and other agents is so common to Luc Besson's films that I honestly can't think of a single exception. The only other plot device that can be said to be more common to his films is that the female lead will inevitably at some point (or throughout the film) be completely dependent upon heroic and flashy rescue by the male lead, whether the rescued female lead is altogether helpless in general or outside that context is a "genetically perfect" fighting machine...but I digress. In any event, I expect if you are going to find a name for this plot mechanism, you will find it at TVTropes.org -- here is their list of identified common themes for villains, so I'd start looking there for your best chance at finding a term and a listing of other examples; though it's by no means a certainty even there and any term found is unlikely to be in common use elsewhere, if you do find one, there will be a list of stories known to employ it. A fair warning, however -- if you have not visited TVtropes previously be prepared for the eventuality that you might end up spending an evening of feverish reading not all that dissimilar to what you might have experienced the first time you utilized Misplaced Pages! At least, that was the similar experience for me. :) Snow talk 00:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Another thought - is the original question about fiction only, or does it include productions based on historical events ?

In movies such as Battle Of Britain and Battle Of Midway, the opposing commanders never meet, as they never met in real history...

90.244.129.56 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I hadn't considered war films/books but you raise a good point about them. And yes, Snow Rise, I've been to TVTropes and agree that it's harder to get out of than quicksand.  :) Dismas| 07:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ownership of a television show

I don't know much about how the TV industry works. But who "owns" The Brady Bunch TV show? So, back in 1969 (when the show began), someone somewhere had – for example – audition tapes, publicity photographs, scripts, interview notes, props, sets, payroll records, cast lists, and all sorts of material of that nature. Who would "own" all that stuff? Who would "own" it back then? And who would "own" it today? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The studio or production company would have been the original owner, and may still be. That company may sell the entire program to a syndicator, but usually they sell just the distribution rights.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not really talking about the TV program itself (the 117 episodes). I am talking about all those physical items (props, photos, audition tapes, scripts, etc.). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It would have been owned by the studio where the show was shot; it is unlikely that after nearly 40 years they still kept all that stuff in storage. Some of the stuff may have been since kept as mementos or given out as gifts to people who worked on the show; some may have been repurposed or reused in other shows, some may have been sold off to collectors, museums, or the like, and a lot of it was probably just thrown away. --Jayron32 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, the physical props and sets and such are probably long gone. My main interest is photographs. Here is an example. Since Ann B. Davis died just recently, old photos of her are showing up all over the place. Old photographs from The Brady Bunch, old photographs from The Bob Cummings Show, etc. Where do people (TV stations, magazines, newspapers, internet sites, etc.) get these old photographs from? They go and contact the studio (that existed fifty years ago) that owns these photographs? That's what I am not understanding. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Many of these would be publicity photos which were often mass produced and given to various press agencies to use for promotional purposes. The copyright on these would be owned by the original copyright holder. If you want to know who owns the actual prints; there were hundreds or thousands of these things made. You'll often find racks of them in antique stores, poster shops, used record stores, and places like that. Or you did before the Internet killed those businesses. Now you can find them on E-bay: here is a bunch for sale featuring the aforementioned Ms. Davis. Some of these (probably the cheap ones) are likely reproductions of questionable provenance and legality, but I'm sure some number of these are authentic publicity photos produced by the studio at the time of the show's original run. --Jayron32 23:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, when a news organization runs one of these photos, they don't need to get an original copy. They all have digital copies on file already (and probably have for decades); they have a license to reproduce them in their publications. That's what publicity photos are for and how they are intended to be used. --Jayron32 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

And actually, now that I think about it more, I don't believe news agencies maintain their own photo libraries much anymore either. It's probably all outsourced to companies akin to Getty Images or the like who maintain all the photos for use, and the newspaper just gets it from them. --Jayron32 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's not unusual for some of those items to be donated, bequeathed or otherwise gifted to various (often public or non-profit) film and television archives. There are large "prop houses" and "costume houses" that have made a point, over the years, of purchasing props and costumes for archiving, collecting and re-selling purposes. Those are often more commercial. With regard to images in particular, film and television archives often keep these as part of the production records for a particular television show. Television channels and news media organisations regularly contribute to those collections from their own archives (from my Australian experience) and so a quid-pro-quot arrangement often exists to ensure that those channels (in turn) then have access to other materials kept by those archives. This gives them easier access to footage and images that they might not have themselves. Archives, and often the channels themselves, develop "packages" for older television, movie and music stars so that they have something prepared should that person pass away. This is especially the case where someone has a long-term or terminal illness. But when a personal passes away, those archives will often search their records, pull everything they have relating to that person and make those resources available to various news organisations. So items not previously in the public domain or not otherwise available in advance might suddenly become available. Hope that provides some further insight. St★lwart 00:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Groucho Marx - movie joke about searching a woman suspect....

A silly question perhaps. :)

Which Marx Brothers movie contains the following scene:
A woman is suspected of... having stolen a secret document or such ?
Someone suggests: "You should search her"

Groucho turns to the camera and says:
"You know, if this was a French movie, I'd be allowed to..."
90.244.129.56 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've last seen it, and I don't remember all the gags, but Animal Crackers involves the investigation of a theft. You might want to look into that one. --Jayron32 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Much of the description also fits the plot of Duck Soup (1933 film). I did some googling and didn't come up with anything. May be a good excuse to pull the DVD off the shelf but it will be a few days before I can get to it. MarnetteD | Talk 01:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't sound familiar. Groucho is a detective in a movie called Love Happy which I have never seen. Could that be it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Groucho isn't onscreen much in that one. I thought it might be the scene with Marilyn but this shows that it isn't. A Night in Casablanca is another possibility as it has some spy type shenanigans in it. MarnetteD | Talk 03:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone at this Snopes message board thread (search for "Groucho") remembers the gag somewhat differently, specifying that Groucho's interlocutor was Margaret Dumont. Of course, the brothers may well have repeated the joke in more than one film/context, but I have to admit, it's not ringing any bells with me. Deor (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have it... ( well don't give it to me... o_O )

Searching on groucho "If this were a French" returns among the results the following from Google Books:

The Comic World of the Marx Brothers' Movies: "anything Further Father?" by Maurice Charney - page 19

Even in a late movie like Love Happy in 1950, in which Groucho plays a minor role, he is still making fun of the censors when he is about to search for the Romanoff diamonds in Mme. Egelichi's spectacular cleavage. His hands travel up to Ilona Massey's capacious bosom then stop abruptly: "If this were a French picture I could do it"

After searching on YouTube with various combinations of: ilona massey, marx, groucho, love happy ; the only copy of the scene I've been able to find thus far is in a full copy of the movie, dubbed in Spanish, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiaAUeukKQ8.

Late in the movie - 1hr 19m - Groucho moves to search Harpo's character, changes his mind, moves instead to search Ilona Massey's character, stops, turns to camera, and says... something dubbed into Spanish... :)

90.244.129.56 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He says "Si fuera una película francesa, lo haría" (If this were a French film, I would do it). --NorwegianBlue 17:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can safely say this question is solved then... ?

90.244.132.79 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 5

Ah, the ballet...

Some days ago I have seen the Simpsons episode "Marge on the Lam", translated to Spanish for Latin America. Marge gets a pair of tickets for the ballet, and Homer likes the idea. But then, we have a view of Homer thoughts: he thinks that "ballet" is a bear driving a small car in a circus. Of course, this causes problems when Homer finds out the real meaning of ballet: people dancing with boring music.

I did not understand that joke. Is it a joke about multiple meanings of "ballet" in English, which got lost in the translation? (in Spanish, "ballet" is the dance, and nothing else). Or is it some type of non sequitur humor, with Homer confusing ballet with the bear in the little car absolutely for no reason at all? Cambalachero (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The second one. I guess the joke is suggesting that Homer really isn't that cultured to know what ballet is, and/or the last thing he saw wearing a tutu was a bear in the circus. --McDoobAU93 17:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, many Homer jokes come down to him being ignorant. Some interesting reading and refs at Homer_Simpson#Analysis. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This time the joke extends to Lenny and Carl too - in the next scene, Lenny also thinks ballet is "the bear driving around in the tiny car". Just a funny non sequitur. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 6

What about the pope did Sinead O'Connor not like?

What about the then-pope did Sinead O'Connor not like enough to tear up his picture and say "fight the real enemy"?75.75.42.89 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's an interview with O'Connor about that incident in The Guardian where she explains why she did it. She had altered the lyrics to the song she was performing to reference child abuse within the Catholic church, and the tearing up of the pope's picture was as he was head of the church hierarchy to which she had a general antipathy towards rather than that particular pope (John Paul II). Also, she was inspired by Bob Geldof on Top of the Pops who tore up a picture of Travolta and Newton-John in Grease and she thought it would be provocative to do the same with the pope's picture. --Canley (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Music used in an episode of NCIS: Los Angeles

What is the song played during the highway shootout scene in Series 2, Episode 16, "Empty Quiver"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The only song listed in IMDb for that episode is "Running Up That Hill" by Placebo. Is that it? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is! Thanks. Wonder why I didn't think of looking at IMDb. Hey look WP has an article about it, which mentions it's use in the NCIS:LA episode. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

And thus a placebo is the cure for your problem ... Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Frank Zappa- Just Another Band From L.A. credits

Sir(s), Madam(s), It should be noted that the highly skilled Sherman Barrymore Keene was the recording engineer for this live album. Sherman is a friend. He recorded the show using two mic's. That's right, you heard right, TWO MICROPHONES. They were flown over the stage and Sherman explained top the band members that if they wanted to hear "more (or less) of their particular instrument" in the mix, they had to get a roadie (probably "Dunt") to move their amps closer to or farther away from the mic(s). The album is an engineering masterpiece. Sherman also worked for Ike Turner at Bolic Sound in L.A. and a bunch of other places. He's a swell guy and should get a mention in the credits. Something/anything like, Sound Engineer: Sherman Barrymore Keene.

Best, Arthur Harding Eureka, Ca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.126.180.234 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Misplaced Pages articles are created and edited by ordinary people like you and me. If you have a reliable published source which names Keene as the recording engineer for the album, then you are welcome to edit the article and add him (referencing the source - see referencing for beginners). If you have not, I'm afraid that your personal knowledge is not enough as a source, because a random reader has no way of checking it. If you don't feel confident editing the article, or if you have not got a source, but you think somebody else might be able to find one, you could put your suggestion on the talk page of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

June 8

JFK in "Days of Future Past"

In the recent movie X-Men: Days of Future Past it was said by the character Magneto that John F. Kennedy was a mutant (mutants are characters with superhuman powers in the X-Men franchise). I have seen real presidents being used in superhero stories before, but this case sounds a bit too much. Has there been any reaction to this weird comment about JFK? We are talking about a real president, after all. Cambalachero (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Google references would probably be your best bet, as it's what we would do if we wanted to know (unless someone here has already investigated it). It's fair to say that whatever super-powers JFK might have had, they didn't protect him from severe back pain, nor from the ammunition of a mail-order rifle. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time in Angel when Cordelia Chase asked whether the Blue Man Group are demons and Angel said (iirc) only two of them. —Tamfang (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking in real-world reactions from people related to the Kennedy family, or his government, or similar, who either approve or reject the plot twist; not in fan discussions of in-universe stuff from the plot of the movies (which is what I find when I use google). Cambalachero (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the entries here - especially the 'comedy' section. I think a depiction of Kennedy would have to be either unspeakably outrageous or make an unfounded claim of truthfulness in order to elicit even a visibly-raised eyebrow from official Kennedy sources. The government evidently doesn't care, and has no interest in appearing to care. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw the movie two days ago. The quote was in a rather complex context which went way over the heads of the mainly teenage audience, but which fitted with the over the top representation of the 1973 setting of most of the story. Older folks like me who (vaguely) remember that year thought it was hilarious. Anyone taking that line seriously wasn't in the right mood for seeing such a film. It wasn't meant to be a documentary. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the Men in Black franchise has made a regular point of suggesting that various famous people are "aliens" (like Michael Jackson, who was alive at the time) and it was suggested (in the third movie) that Andy Warhol was secretly a government agent, something those close to him might have found objectionable. It's just something writers do to give their films a bit of a real-world tie-in and to give a film some context. The first retro X-Men (First Class) centred on an alternate history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - the title says it all. St★lwart 00:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was no significant reaction from the estates or friends of those people to those depictions though some historians shook their heads the idea of Lincoln hunting vampires, thinking it distasteful or silly. St★lwart 00:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And I'd forgotten, the original book (Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (novel)) on which the film is based actually suggests that JFK might be a vampire hunter himself. I don't think that made it into the film. St★lwart 00:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 9

Comparing Konigs

Leonard Nimoy played the role of "Konig" is one of his original Outer Limits episodes: Production and Decay of Strange Particles. He later co-stared with Walter Koenig in the original Star Trek. Just a coincidence ? StuRat (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What else could it be? (Also, I think you mean co-starred, though I suppose they both stared at a lot of things; Nichelle was quite a looker). Are you suggesting Nimoy influenced the hiring to commemorate the earlier episode somehow? I'm honestly perplexed. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps Nimoy knew Konig before they worked together in Star Trek, so suggested that name for his character. Just one of many possibilities. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely. The history of the making of Star Trek as been covered in numerous books and documentaries and it is hard to imagine that it wouldn't have been mentioned before. BTW the names are not pronounced the same. Looks like you are having a fun journey down the WP:SYNTH road. Note I am not criticizing. It is fun and I have done things like that before. For example Star Trek and Dr Who both did shows about the Gunfight at the OK Corral withing a couple years of each other but I have never found that ST did it because of the DW episode. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In the episode Nick of Time (The Twilight Zone), Shatner plays a guy bedeviled by a fortune telling machine. In the Star Trek episode The Devil in the Dark, Shatner comes to the creature's defense just in the nick of time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

and Nimoy appeared in Mission Impossible, playing a character that replaced one played by Martin Landau, who eventually went on to play... gasp... Commander John Koenig

( in other words, it's possible to find random coincidences in almost any set of data )

90.244.137.60 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

One time in Mission:Impossible, Nimoy got to say "He's dead, Jim." —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"... but not as we know it". -- Jack of Oz 23:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Goalie cap question

I am watching the set of DVDs with highlights of each of the World Cup tournaments. I notice that, from the 30's to the 50's, some of the goalies are wearing caps and I don't mean this Cap (sport) :-). They look like the Newsboy cap although that may not be the right name for them. I am wondering of there was some story behind the wearing of these. They disappear by the sixties so I also wonder if they just fazed phased out through young players not wanting to wear them or were rules enacted saying they couldn't be worn. Any info will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently, goalkeepers wear different colored uniforms than the rest of the team to make them easy to identify. Could the cap have been used in that regard; as a means to give the goalkeeper something to make them stand out? --Jayron32 00:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a possibility. With the exception of some hand tinting that was added to the film of the first final between Uruguay and Argentina all the footage is in black and white. Still there does look to be some differentiation between goalie and team unis. Also, some of the goalies are not wearing caps. It is amazing to see some of the picturesque towns and small stadiums that were used when Switzerland, Sweden and Chile were hosts. Thanks for the suggestion J. MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Goalkeepers (and any other players) are still permitted to wear hats (Section 22 Goalkeeper Cap) although none wear them all the time. The main reasons for wearing them are to protect from sunlight glare and also for warmth (As the Goalkeeper isn't the most active player on the pitch, some have worn wool hats in the winter). I would surmise that one of the reasons they have dropped out of fashion is due to the development of the stadiums. With the addition of higher and larger stands over the years - low angle sunlight is less of a problem during most games in higher leagues and competitions. Nanonic (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Goalkeepers with caps were once a common sight in club football too in the UK. In fact, Subbuteo used to make figurines of goalkeepers both with and without caps. I'd guess that Nanonic's probably not far off the truth. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link N. Interesting info. Thanks to you as well D. I saw those Subbuteo figurines in one of the Britcoms that aired here in the US on PBS back in the 70's though, for the life of me, I can't remember which one at the moment. MarnetteD | Talk 15:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nanonic: FYI the documentary for 1966 proved exactly what you have described. In the final the West German goalie Hans Tilkowski is seen bareheaded in the first half. He has a hat on in the second and the camera shows the sun's rays covering his end of the field. This was the first documentary in colour so it was much easier to see what you described. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. MarnetteD | Talk 02:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Free kicks

When I was learning about the rest of the worlds football as a young 'un there were two different free kicks. Indirect, where two players had to touch it before going in the goal, and direct, where it could be kicked directly into the goal. If memory serves it was the severity of the foul that determined which would be used. I could be wrong but I think these rules were still in place into the 1980's as Toby Charles was talking about them in the Soccer Made in Germany series that we watched on PBS. I can certainly understand why the distinction was fazed phased out as it is a complete judgement call for the officials. I do wonder when the rules were changed and did they disappear all at once or was it at different times in each country. Again, info provided is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the distinction between a direct free kick and an indirect free kick? St★lwart 22:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are the ones. I notice that neither article mentions that the distinction has been fazed phased out. I would mention that I haven't heard an announcer mention these in decades which seems odd if they are still in the rule book. Thanks for the links S. MarnetteD | Talk 22:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, but that would be "phased out" Britmax (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct. Is that a WP:ENGVAR thing or is it just that I have been watching too many shows set in and about the sixties recently :-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at wikitionary taught me the errors of my way. Thanks again Britmax. MarnetteD | Talk 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess I was dazed and confused. MarnetteD | Talk 23:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Better than being tired and emotional. Britmax (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hah! Very true. Thanks for the link to that article B. I might never have found it otherwise. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The distinction has not been phased out - it still applies. A direct free kick is awarded when a player commits a deliberate foul or handball outside the penalty area. An indirect free kick is awarded when a player commits another type of infringement such as obstruction or dangerous play, or if a goalkeeper handles a back pass, etc. The referee signals that an indirect rather than direct free kick has been awarded by raising his hand above his head. More info here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update G. The link is much appreciated. Interesting to know. I guess that it is just the announcers that have stopped mentioning the difference between the two. MarnetteD | Talk 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 10

List of lesbian actresses (repeat)

Is there a list of confirmed lesbian actresses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.9.204.26 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time you've asked this. Have you tried using the site's search function yet? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me towards the answers the previous times this was asked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.9.204.26 (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

One is here: - I think the other has been removed in its entirety due to being a recent repetition; I'm not going to dredge up individual diffs just to show that this is something you can look up for yourself. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no: here it is: . In the top 50 diffs for this page, removed by Jayron32 for trolling. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but nothing in these links leads to a list of lesbian actresses 111.9.204.26 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I ask you again: have you tried using this site's search function? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: Try ticking the 'categories' box on the advanced search form before searching. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I already found Category:Lesbian actresses but it doesn't even have Ellen Degeneres listed! I want help finding a list of lesbian actresses with referenced and reliable third party sources so that I can update their Misplaced Pages articles. 111.9.204.26 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait it's listing them by surname instead of first name. I see it now. Thanks 111.9.204.26 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hold on - that category is based on what's already in Misplaced Pages articles. If you're intending to bolster the referencing, that's great - but Misplaced Pages itself is not a source, and you won't find what's not already here. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So the original question still stands unanswered, then? 111.9.204.26 (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been answered. You asked for a list of lesbian actresses. You have been given a list of lesbian actresses. -- Jack of Oz 12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like they want a referenced list from outside of Misplaced Pages. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you want actresses who are lesbians, not actresses who have portrayed lesbians, right ? And how about bisexual actresses, like Portia de Rossi ? StuRat (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Televising the World Cup (or any other major event)

Here in the UK, in a few days time, the TV schedule will be wiped out and replaced by the matches of the World Cup. I think it's safe to assume the same will happen in other countries. Does each network that is showing the games, send their own camera crew to film the matches or is there a standard feed which comes from the games and the TV stations commentators voices are added? Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A bit of both, I suspect. That is, each of the major networks send a film crew, while lesser networks can't afford to do so, and instead obtain the rights to use one of the major network's feeds. I noticed that there was a problem with satellite bandwidth during the last Olympics, and they reacted by lowering the frame rate, making it look like the events were filmed with a strobe light flashing. Having fewer feeds, shared more widely, would help eliminate problems such as this. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Olympics has its own television broadcasting service, from which countries take feeds and can either provide their own commentary or take the standard Olympic commentary. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You pretty much have it pegged Stu. Also, thanks for the link TM but the World Cup is not run by the IOC so that article won't have much relevance - though there still might be some. This one 2014 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights is relevant but doesn't really answer the OP's question. One thing of note is the number of countries covering the event - it would be impossible for all of them to fit their own equipment into the various stadiums. For the most part there will be one main televised feed that is distributed to all of the countries. Some (most?) countries will have announcing teams at the venues to call the games. Some will have announcers at a central location (Rio or Sao Paulo at a guess) and call the games from there. A few will save on costs by have announcers at a studio in their country rather then sending them to Braz(s)il. I remember this happening here in the US for the 1986 Cup when Tony Tirado called all the games for SIN (US TV didn't cover all the games yet) but the times have moved on since then and, I suspect, that those that don't send at least one announcer to the host country are few and far between. Other editors my have more specific info Trog so keep your eyes peeled for updates. MarnetteD | Talk 19:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it did say in the title "or other major events" so what I posted is relevant to that bit. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The world feed and some of the news packages will once again be provided by HBS. , , . Nanonic (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And for camera positions etc. Nanonic (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Songwriters inspired by psychedelic drugs

Which songwriters have attributed their songwriting ideas (and for which songs?) to the influence of psychedelic drugs? (As always at WP:RD, I appreciate being provided supporting references. However, if you are unable to provide any, please do not let that prevent you from identifying songwriters and/or songs and/or drugs. Someone else might be able to provide supporting references for your information. Ideally, I am visualizing a table with five columns: "Songwriter", "Song", "Year", "Drug", and "Reference".)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was inspired by LSD. Although John Lennon denied it, Paul McCartney later admitted it. See the song article for references and other Beatles songs inspired by drugs. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Mother's Little Helper (see the song article for sources) by The Rolling Stones is about Valium, although that's a tranquilizer, not a psychedelic drug. Do you really mean to limit the discussion of psychedelic drugs ? StuRat (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant that the songwriters claimed to have been influenced psychedelically by psychedelic drugs, so that their ideas came from an altered state of consciousness. Whether or not drugs are mentioned in the lyrics is irrelevant.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. It might still be a good starting point if the drug is mentioned, as presumably they usually write about it because they are familiar with it. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hotel California by The Eagles refers to "the warm smell of colitas", a slang term for marijuana. See Hotel California#Interpretation for sources. I'd also expect half the songs by Cheech and Chong to be about that. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There are also many songs that refer to drugs but aren't specific, such as The Doors Light my Fire, containing the lyric: "You know we couldn't get much higher". (It sounds like a drug that requires a fire to consume, but there are many of those.) StuRat (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Light My Fire" is incoherent enough to have been written on drugs, but imho it's all about sex. (Isn't everything?) —Tamfang (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

White Rabbit (song). --Viennese Waltz 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing genres from the more obvious psychedelic rock, perhaps many songs on The Chronic would count, see Dre admit to composing while high on occasion here . Here is Snoop dogg talking about how he is high pretty much 24/7, so we can safely assume that most of his work is inspired/influenced by drugs as well. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would expect most of Syd Barrett's solo work to fall into this category, also work by Daevid Allen, Gong, and Steve Hillage. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not psychedelic, per se, but heroin has been inspirational to many well known songs; i.e. Lou Reed (see Heroin (song)), Iggy Pop (see Lust for Life (song)), possibly The Las (see There She Goes), etc. --Jayron32 19:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The trio band Aliotta Haynes Jeremiah had a song called "The Snow Queen" which was specifically about cocaine. Their major hit song, "Lake Shore Drive", referenced in the song at some points as "LSD" was not explicitly about drugs, though LSD is a coincidental play on it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't source this without exposing my secret identity, but there's a fairly(?) good chance Canadian radio listeners have heard at least one (maybe two) of my songs, which aren't at all about drugs or "trippy sounding". But I've been stoned virtually every time I sat down to hammer anything out. The drugs (just weed and shrooms here) inspire the act of music, but not the art. Once everything sounds better, I feel better about being inspired by whatever. Definitely influences a lot of artists the same way, though you'd never guess it from listening.

But sadly, Puff the Magic Dragon isn't one of those tunes. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

If you count poetry as song, there's a whole article about Coleridge and opium. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Are you Jason Englishman? That would be cool. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not as cool as if you were a jaguar raised in a wolf pack. (Just checked your user page. Not that guy.) InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Wow. No mention of Jimi_Hendrix? "Like most acid-heads, Jimi had visions and he wanted to create music to express what he saw. He would try to explain this to people, but it didn't make sense because it was not linked to reality in any way. " —Kathy Etchingham 196.214.78.114 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian Wilson (with the Beach Boys), Hang On to Your Ego. Staecker (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 11

musical instruments

I've just spent 15 minutes or more looking up Armenian musical instruments in oder to get a sound byte of a particular instrument . Nowhere, on any page I tried, was such a thing available. I'll bet I should have tried YouTube or even Amazon. Your treatment of the general subject reminds me of the old joke about six blind men each describing the elephant they were touching. While I am impressed with the amount of information supplied, nowhere was there available a link to a simple sound byte of the instrument in question. This is not the first time I've had this overdone method of delivering info defeat my efforts. I find I'm not using what should be the single most important reference work on the planet. My own library could probably come close to providing the info found in your pages, but like this site, apparently, it does not have sound capabilities . This seems incredibly dumb in this day & age, and unless you become MUCH more user-friendly you are likely to wonder why your site, so promising, does not grow in use and importance; instead becoming a side-water of lost potential.DptOpCat3 (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Misplaced Pages is entirely written by volunteers. We don't have a paid staff researching all these topics, it is only written by people exactly like you who simply wanted to help out. If the fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a sound bite of an obscure Armenian instrument (which no one else does, based on your own admittance of trying to find it) is what makes you believe that Misplaced Pages is worthless, then there's nothing anyone here can do to convince you otherwise, because that's a pretty lousy way to form a lasting opinion of a rather expansive website. If you want to pitch in and help out, your help is needed as well. The only reason ANYTHING (and I mean everything: every single word of every single article on the whole website. Even the really good articles) exists at Misplaced Pages is because someone saw that Misplaced Pages was lacking in information, and decided to add it. That is, random people who were surfing the internet decided to add something. Since you seem to fit that bill, we welcome your work! --Jayron32 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Jayron. Basing your assessment of our user friendliness (!) on the existence or not of a sound bite of an obscure Armenian musical instrument that not one person in 100,000 in the English-speaking world would ever even have heard of, let alone know the first thing about - and this is the English Misplaced Pages we have here, by the way - would make those six blind men seem rather astute by comparison. I fully understand your frustration, but your expectations are somewhat out of kilter with reality. Nowhere has Misplaced Pages ever claimed to have extremely detailed information on any conceivable topic, obscure or otherwise, chosen at random (other people may well make such claims, but Misplaced Pages itself does not, and this would be a perfect counterexample). But if you do what Jayron suggests, we may well soon have a sound bite of the duduk, which would suddenly render us highly user-friendly and give those legions of other duduk researchers a pleasant surprise. -- Jack of Oz 22:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The article "Duduk" (version of 21:21, 30 May 2014) has a link to a recording of duduk music. If you scroll down (or click down from the table of contents), you can see, at the right-hand side of the page, a link to a recording in a .ogg file. (I used "a", not "an", before "dot-oh-gee-gee".)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How much sound can you cram into one byte? —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A duduk recording (3 minutes, 7.7 MBytes) has been available as a link in the article since early 2011. Your critique seems based on poor visual acuity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Open (golf)

I'm trying to figure out why the logo for this year's U.S. Open looks familiar. File:2014USOpenLogo.svg It resembles a painting of a farmer with a broad hat and a scythe, with the scythe replaced by a trophy. I'm thinking this is a play on a famous painting, but I can't find it in Google Images. Any ideas? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a variation on the other U.S. open logos when it was held at Pinehurst. I don't know if there was an original inspiration, but look at 2005_U.S._Open_(golf) and 1999 U.S. Open (golf) and you'll see a theme. The boy in the bucket hat I believe comes from the logo of the Pinehurst Resort itself, see here. --Jayron32 00:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur, see . Nanonic (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And you can see the old ads from 1900-1910 here. Nanonic (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And here is a photo of the statue of the kid at Pinehurst. Deor (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It has come to me what the logo reminds me of: It's the logo for Simon & Schuster. Regarding that, what's up with this "media viewer" that has popped up in he last week or so? Is that something that changed on Misplaced Pages? Or is my PC doing it? Whatever it is, it's very annoying. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to the Appearance tab in your preferences, Bugs, and uncheck the "Enable Media Viewer" box under "Files". Yes, it's fairly new. Deor (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! I always love it when they pull a fast one on us. I'm guessing the purpose of that option is to better enable viewing by smartphones and the like. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 12

What genre is this kind of music?

Is it classical? It sounds distinctly different from traditional classical musics but I wouldn't put it in the same category, maybe a sub category of classical? I don't know much about music though, what genre is it? -- penubag  (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Elevator_music 196.214.78.114 (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the sarcastic comment? -- penubag  (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

None intended. Have you read the article? In my opinion the clip fits the description. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I agree. The "pretty" melody accompanied by an extremely tedious and repetitive base line is typical of elevator music. Classical music is usually much more creative.--Shantavira| 08:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See also Muzak. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me a bit of what Liberace played, but I can't find a reference to what genre he performed in. Mingmingla (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The bit around 1:20 sounds a bit Spanish, but not sure if pianos are grounds for flamenco disqualification. In any case, it wasn't prevalent. Might want to see Mikhail Glinka#The value of creativity, if you haven't, for how people described his general style, though not this particular piece. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

en passant

If en passant was made to avoid pawns using 2step move to escape capture why cant other pieces capture a pawn with a analogue en passant move?

1- 2 step rule was made to speed up the game 2- But now pawns can skip capture by jumping 2 times. 3- This means rule changed and game and not just made a speed up. 4- To fix this problem, if some pawn would be able to capture a another pawn that moved 2 step (in the case he moved only one step), he can make his normal capture move moving to this empty (because pawn moved 2 steps instead of one) place and capture the pawn.

But imagine that 1- pawn have 2 step rules 2- if a pawn move one time he would be able to be captured by a rook 3- he moves 2 times and escape it 4- rook cant do something about it. 201.78.189.200 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The history of the En passant move explains its origin and purpose. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say why 201.78's alternative rule wasn't used. But there is a simple explanation: the rook can do something about it, because it can move backwards and capture the pawn later. It may not be practical to do it right away, but that's just part of the game. The opposing pawn, on the other hand, would always have had the opportunity to capture under the old rule (no double step), but without en passant, it would never have it. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be an interesting chess variant, though, if all pieces could make the double move and be captured en passant: and I think that's already been invented by Ralph Betza as "Doublestep Chess". Obviously, en passant captures (by any piece in this variant) would have to be single moves. He specifically forbids null moves like Nc3-e4-c3, which seems logical as (1) pawns and kings (see below) can't do that as part of their double move and (2) that would invalidate zugzwang.

If you think about it, castling is really a doublemove (or perhaps a triplemove, as the rook jumps over the king as well), and this is why you can't castle through check. Here the capture could be effected by any piece, but that is simply because the king is a royal piece and thus cannot be captured.

On that page, Betza also has the related "Doubletime Chess", where the second part of the double move can be a capture. This leads to the result that if a piece captures using a doublemove, and then is taken en passant, the piece was uncaptured. (Obviously, given a Black Kf8 and a White Re1, ...Kf8xe8 would be illegal after Re1-e8xf8, because the king is not on the board now!)

In a way I suppose you could say that when a pawn moves two squares, it turns into a sort of superposition of having moved one square and having moved two squares, and collapses into the former state if and only if an en passant capture was subsequently made, and into the latter state otherwise. This leads to the "uncapturing" effect in Doubletime Chess, as the situation has collapsed into the one where the piece was never captured. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Home run in first pitch of career - has it ever been done?

Hi there. Mark Craig recently scored a six - the highest score that can be made from a single shot, caused by hitting the ball out of the ground without it bouncing first - from the first ball he faced in Test cricket - the pinnacle format of international cricket. As a cricket fan with a lot of American family/friends and someone who thinks he could really get into baseball, I am wondering: has anyone ever hit the first pitch they ever faced at professional/top-flight/etc. for a home run, or even a grand slam? S.G. _ping! 20:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's been done. Misplaced Pages has a list here. Look for players with # to see those that hit on the first pitch, and #& (or &#) is first pitch plus grand slam, for example Daniel Nava. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that it is possible to score more than six from one delivery in cricket. The test record is eight (a run four with four overthrows) by Andrew Symonds (AUS v NZ, The Gabba, November 2008) , and the first-class record is 10 by one S. H. Wood (Derbyshire v MCC, Lord's, 1900). . Tevildo (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, one of the baseball players on that list is Hoyt Wilhelm, a Hall of Fame pitcher who played 21 seasons. He hit a home run in his first time at bat (not the first pitch) and never hit another.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ol' Hoyt was not much of a hitter. I haven't been able to confirm just where that ball landed, but his own comments suggested it was right down the line at the Polo Grounds, which was 279 feet to left and 258 feet to right (he was a right-hand batter, so presumably left field). What's even more astonishing is that he was 28 years old when made his MLB debut, and still managed to play for 21 seasons. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So four people have hit grand slams on their maiden at bat? That's more than I expected. S.G. _ping! 11:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Are there pitchers who have given up a home run on their first career pitch? Staecker (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the list of pitchers who allowed a homer to the first batter they faced; those whose first pitch was hit deep are in bold (there are 11 of them). --Xuxl (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

McDonalds FIFA ad

There's an ad on TV now I don't understand at all. A group of about 5 men are standing close together on a sidewalk adjacent to a puddle in the street, and they each have their hands covering their crotches, although they are fully clothed. They move as a group in a way that reminds me of a line of foosball players, then wait for a truck to drive through the puddle, which then splashes them all with water from the puddle. This appeared to be their goal. The narrator then says "Got FIFA fever ?". I have no clue what this is all about, but figure it has something to do with the FIFA World Cup. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's making fun of one of the sillier images from soccer, when defenders protecting the goal from a free kick protect themselves as well. See here, and here. (I'm not sure where female players put their hands.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That explains the hands over the crotch part, and moving in unison, but do you know why they seemed to want to be splashed by the puddle ? StuRat (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fairly obscure, a parody. But what about the covering up? Don't soccer players wear cups? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Nor do Australian footballers, or players of the rugby codes, or Gaelic footballers. Do American footballers wear cups? HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Baseball players do, of course. They would be crazy or masochistic not to. But the nature of that sport is a bit different. Presumably footballers might wear a conventional athletic supporter, but either way it would be insufficient protection against a hard-kicked soccer ball. (And I thought I wasn't going to learn anything new today.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Some excellent research there Bugs. And it's good to see the New York Tomes covering such an important matter. And yes, as a baseball catcher for some seasons (in a very low level competition) several decades ago, I had some very well fitting protective equipment. Wouldn't have played without it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The former pitcher Jim Bouton, in his famous book Ball Four, described a situation where he was in the bullpen and wasn't expecting to be called in, so he hadn't worn his cup. Guess what. So he took the mound without protection, and was as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. He got through it without incident. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection for the family jewels is also worn in cricket but it's called a "box". Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen the advert but I assume they'd jump to get splashed in the same way a defensive wall would jump to try to head the ball away as it passed over them, to attempt to clear it before it reaches the goalkeeper. As for what women protect at free kicks, it's womb and breasts, obviously. The idea that association footballers would wear a box is patently absurd. Next we'd be suggesting that tennis players do the same, although Nadal fiddles with his shorts so frequently..... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Where was this From ?

Greetings. At least 30 years ago we watched what I believe to have been an episode from one of those shows like Tales of the Unexpected or Twilight Zone, where one of the segments was a story about a pompous wine expert who wanted to marry a young woman, and he made a bet with her father, who was a drunk, that they could blind taste wine, and guess the exact vintage, and the father would give his blessing - regardless of what his daughter wanted. The wine taster resembled a middle aged man a bit like Vincent Price, while the drunk was played by someone like Peter Lorre or Burt Young, but I cannot be sure. The wine taster won, but it turns out he had been cheating, and the young lady breaks a bottle over his head, but he is more embarrassed than hurt. I checked, and Peter Lorre did do some shows like that in the sixties just before he died, as did Vincent Price, but I cannot isolate which one. To me it seemed more recent than that, like it had been made in the seventies, and we watched it, as early as about 1978, and as late as 1988, but I cannot narrow it down. Also, there was an American movie from about the sixties about two girls in a Catholic School, and they prank a girl they do not like by covering her face with plaster ( allowing her to breath thru straws in her nose ) while she was asleep, but cannot recall who was in it. Any help would be appreciated. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 07:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

First one sounds like an adaptation of Taste (short story).--Shantavira| 08:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

With that clue, I tracked down the 1980 Tales of the Unexpected episode "Taste". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The second film is The Trouble with Angels (1966), starring Hayley Mills, Rosalind Russell and June Harding. Tevildo (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

John Carter - Thern Medallion Teleportation

When Dejah Thoris is explaining Thern teleportation to John Carter, is that in any way similar to what quantum teleportation is ? Scotius (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Salaries of actors and celebrities

Does anyone know of a web-site (or some other source) that collectively lists salaries for various actors and celebrities in various films, TV shows, theatre roles, etc.? I know that this information can be found piece-meal here and there. I am wondering if there is some sort of collective list of information, all found in one place. For example, it would state: Alan Alda was paid $3 million per episode on the TV show M*A*S*H; Sylvester Stallone was paid $28 million for his role in the film Rocky; Nathan Lane was paid $11 million for his role on Broadway in The Producers. Stuff like that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk