Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of entertainment.

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

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. All answers will be provided here.
  • Specific questions, that are likely to produce reliable sources, will tend to get clearer answers,
  • 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 are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.



How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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


January 11

Article too promotional/advertising

Hello! I am writing a wikipedia article of a tattoo style 'Trash Polka'. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trash_Polka So far it has been declined for being too promotional. I have fixed it several times and was hoping that I could be pointed out which parts are too much like an advertisement and use peacock terms. I have put many external sources as well to show that it is not for promotional purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin Lackner (talkcontribs) 10:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's probably a few minor issues, but that can be cleaned up as part of the normal open-editing process by any other editor that comes along. Users who patrol AFC tend to be far too precious about their roles as self-appointed referees of Wikipedia, and I don't see a damned thing wrong with that article being in the mainspace. I went and moved it. For the record, AFC is an optional process. If you find it confounding, you can just ignore it and go ahead and create articles however you want; there's no rule that requires it. Just be aware that new articles in the main space will be ruthlessly edited and can be deleted right away if inappropriate, so there is that. But there's no rule that says you have to use the AFC process. --Jayron32 11:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The other option - and the one I think most established editors use, including myself - is to create and edit the article in a user subpage and then move it to the main space once you're comfortable with it being evaluated and edited by others. Per Jayron, you don't usually need to have anyone's permission to upload an article to main space (though it's usually not bad to get a second opinion, especially if you're new to writing articles). Matt Deres (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's true, asking for help is always good; it's the culture at Wikipedia which has shifted towards making new users feel like WP:AFC is the only way to get an article created; and that if an article fails a review at AFC it is doomed. While it is true that many articles that fail WP:AFC would be deleted if they were mainspace articles, the problem is that it goes too far in the other direction. AFC reviewers should focus (IMHO) solely on whether or not an article would be deleted if in the mainspace. If it would survive AFD discussions, it should be passed on. Full stop. The normal editing process can clean up issues with tone, formatting, style and the like. AFC holds up articles for trivial reasons, and it creates a HUGE barrier to entry for new users. People ask why Wikipedia's new editor base is dying off; AFC is the reason why. New users get smacked when they try to play around a bit; a decade ago we weren't so precious with this stuff and we helped users learn how to do it right. Now, all we do is say "fuck you, you're not good enough!" with no guidance or help or mentoring or anything. AFC is a big part of that, a giant pink "fuck you" banner with no effort to help the new editor fix the problems. WP:AGF has flown out the window, and everyone assumes every new user is here to advertise some business or promote themselves, with no effort made to help people write good articles anymore. It's no wonder no one wants to start editing anymore. --Jayron32 16:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

January 12

Have there ever been any villains depicted as having both a right-hand man and a left-hand man?

Have there ever been any villains depicted as having both a right-hand man and a left-hand man? If so, can you please tell me the names of these villains and what fictional work they appeared in? Unboredom (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by left-hand man? "Right hand man" is known expression referring to a personal assistant (the current redirect) or closest confidante. Is it a reference to this? Matt Deres (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This states that Dexter Morgan is ambidextrous. Google ambidextrous + villains for more. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, because then the right-hand man wouldn't know what the left-hand man was doing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
There can be only one ... second banana. [OR alert] In fiction, criminal organizations tend to be very hierarchical. See for example SPECTRE#By hierarchy (where the expression "number one with a bullet" really means something) or The Prisoner ("You are number six.") or Dr. Evil's Number 2. If you had two immediate (ambitious) subordinates with the same rank, that would just be asking for trouble. They'd both be scheming to replace you. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It occurred to me to look for stories where the main henchmen are twins (which perhaps balances out the potential competitiveness). A search threw up the Kabuki twins (henchman of The Penguin in Batman) and twin henchmen of the Merovingian from The Matrix Reloaded. Wymspen (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
In Batman and Harley Quinn, Two-Face has twin henchmen Min and Max. In The Perils of Penelope Pitstop, the Hooded Claw has twin henchmen "The Bully Brothers". Octopussy has twin henchmen Mischka and Grischka. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Shredder had Bebop and Rocksteady. After the turtles whooped one, the other was typically left. Not for long, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
Two Bad was a bit of both for Skeletor. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
If pro wrestling counts as fictional work, most heel managers had at least one tag team made of roughly similar goons carrying out their vile plots. Too many to list, but Bobby Heenan and The Blackjacks, Captain Lou and The Wild Samoans or Teddy Long and Doom were pretty rotten and two-thirds equal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
Clearly, that is not what the OP had in mind. --Viennese Waltz 22:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Then clearly, I wasn't reading his mind. As far as his question went, here's a man on the right hand, one on the left and a brain in the middle. If that's not exemplary depiction of a famous villain with the ability to flank pesky do-gooders with loyal and balanced associates, I guess I don't know what is. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, January 15, 2018 (UTC)
I did some research, and I found out that having both a right-hand man and a left-hand man is of particular importance in fictional (as well as in real life) mob organizations. It seems the most famous example of a boss, right-hand man, and left-hand man who are not related to one another are Tony (boss), Paulie (right-hand man), and Silvio (left-hand man) from The Sopranos. Unboredom (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

January 14

Can someone explain the difference between these two songs?

Number one is a bit obscure, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyCsHwlBqfU from the Anime series "Shoujo Shuumatsu Ryokou". The other is Cups (song) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmSbXsFE3l8 I'm sure the first is based on the second one, just wondering what a musicologist would say. Rhythm? Melody?

Joepnl (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious fact that they both contain a certain amount of tapping, they don't really have much in common. The anime one seems to be based on dripping water, rather than tapping cups; the rythmns are not the same; and the melodies of the vocal sections are completely different. Wymspen (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I can hear definite connections between these two songs, but to point them out more specifically I'd have to sit down and listen carefully. I'll do that if I get around to it. Basemetal 15:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

January 16

Skirt slashing in Your Name

In Your Name. there is a scene in which, in an Italian restaurant in Tokyo, a scammer complains to get his meal for free. He achieves this and then surreptitiously cuts on the skirt of the restaurant manager. Then the protagonist saves the day by mending the skirt so that it is prettier.

I wonder why the scammer cut the skirt. Is it some kind of humiliation in Japanese culture? --Error (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sister Mary Elephant

According to the article, "Sister Mary Elephant" by Cheech & Chong is the only non-music spoken word recording to ever crack the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100. This is cited to Joel Whitburn's The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits (no year, edition, or page cited). From listening to the track, I agree that indeed it is a purely spoken-word recording with no singing or instrumental background music. However, I have checked both the 7th (2000) and 9th (2010) editions of the Whitburn book, and not only does it not say that "Sister Mary Elephant" is the only non-musical spoken word recording to hit the top 40, it doesn't even mention that the track is a non-musical spoken word recording at all. Is there a better citation for this claim that can be found? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I too was unable to verify; there is "no results found for Sister Mary Elephant" here: Whitburn, Joel (2010). "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits". Billboard Books.  -- The unverified claim is dubious, probably best to try contacting the editor who added it, or delete it. —107.15.152.93 (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It was definitely on the charts. Here is the Billboard Hot 100 Songs Chart from the week of January 5, 1974. The track was #29 that week. It's plausible to have peaked at #24, you could simply page forward through the weeks on that website; though the "only spoken word" track is the dubious part; given the hundreds of comedy albums released over the years, it's possible that other spoken word tracks also hit the top 40. The actual fact that it charted as a single is verifiable, the superlative as the only one to do so is not. --Jayron32 15:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe George Carlin's "Hippie Dippy Weatherman" bit might have been on the charts, given that it got a lot of airplay, but it appears that it was not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, definitely "on the charts", but the "only non-musical spoken word recording to hit the top 40" part is dubious or at least unverified. 107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have posted a message to the user talk page of the account that submitted the edit. There is no doubt that "Sister Mary Elephant" hit #24 on the Hot 100; I have a copy of the Joel Whitburn book in front of me which says so. But I've found at least one other contender as a non-musical spoken word recording in the Top 40: "The Astronaut (Parts 1 & 2)" by José Jiménez (Bill Dana), which hit #19 in 1961. I haven't verified that the version of "The Astronaut" I have heard, with no music, is the same one that was on the chart, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17

"Baby Mine" from Bill Henderson with the Oscar Peterson Trio

Resolved: 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down the composer(s) of "Baby Mine" from Bill Henderson with the Oscar Peterson Trio (1963). It is definitely not the Frank Churchill / Ned Washington song, despite some (erroneous) sources. The best I can come up with is: Verve 837 037/2. Any assistance finding a proper reference for lyricist/composer appreciated. —107.15.152.93 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the tune usually called "Crawdad Song" or "Crawdad Hole". I think it's considered traditional. Nice version. I'm a lot more familiar with Doc Watson's version. [1] --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right. I didn't recognize such a slow version (did he add the "baby mine" bit to the lyrics?). I found a source for 'traditional': [2]107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 18

How to edit tile distribution in Quackle (Scrabble program)?

I play Scrabble using the dictionary on their website [3]. I'm so clueless I don't even know the name of that dictionary, only that it's not SOWPODS. Anyway, I'm trying to improve my gameplay with the help of Quackle [4], but for some reason using the "english" Alphabet in that program gives me a gameboard with more tiles than what I have. This means that the evaluations are always slightly off, sometimes very wrong. How can I choose the standard U.S. version of tile distribution? Thank you. Imagine Reason (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment&oldid=821104644"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA