Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 16 March 2016

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

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.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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.

March 10

where to buy: Sheet Music with lyrics to: 'Undecided' & 'My Blue Heaven' by The Delta Rhythm Boys, from Sing Brothers Sing Album, with Glen Miller Orchestra

Hello! I am trying to create a quartet here in a retirement community in central Florida and I want to sing a couple of songs by The Delta Rhythm Boys, 'Undecided' and 'My Blue Heaven' recorded on their - Sing Brothers Sing album backed by the Glen Miller Orchestra preferably. Can you help identify where I can go for that music? I have tried Wikipedia and it has provided some history, but not where I can find the music. Thank you in advance!

J. Walker Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.169.84 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was unable to find the song you are looking for. I did find some sheet music from The Delta Rhythm Boys, for example the song "Take the 'A' Train", you can buy it for 5 euro at musicnotes.com. This and that may also be interesting to you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking specifically for four-part vocal arrangements? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rain term

Resolved

– 07:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In Rain (1932 film) there is a term used frequently in (presumed) reference to a prostitute. It is difficult to make out what they are saying due to poor audio, accents, etc. -- Anybody know? ~Thanks, 2600:1004:B002:C399:5092:AA58:C57:295B (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did it sound like ? Where in the movie is it said ? Where is a clip we can listen to ? StuRat (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the movie on cable (TCM), so don't have a 'clip'; it was said at least 3~4 times in 1st 20~30 minutes. Term was approx. 5 syllables long, and due to context was likely a US (military?) slang for "prostitute"; sounded Polynesian-ish to me. -Dynamic IP:2600:1004:B002:C399:4CC9:64B5:E14E:F72 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the complete film on youtube. See if you can tell us some timestamps where they're saying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the scene at 21:40, the word is "Iwelei" - "the plague spot of Honolulu". This is the relevant passage from the novel. We don't have an article on the area, but see this site. Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a link to that section of the play's script. Both short story and the play refer to Iwelei as Honolulu's red-light district. Iwilei is listed under List of ghost towns in Hawaii#Honolulu County. -- ToE 00:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scene at 21:40 is indeed where Sadie Thompson's background is first discussed and "Iwelei" (sounds like "evil-lay"?) is the word . Thanks for the info and links! -- BTW, I tried to add YouTube link to [scene at 21:40], but it was rejected: site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. -- How come Baseball Bugs' link wasn't rejected? ~Dynamic IP:2600:1004:B019:951E:90D3:11D6:61A5:4021 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that natives pronounce the "w" like a "v", that "evil-lay" pronunciation would make sense. As to why I was able to link it and you weren't, I have no clue. Maybe it's a regional thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How I check if a move is allowed on my turn, on chess, without recursion?

How the hell i check if a move is legal or not on chess?
Anyway, chess players cant make a move that would put his king into check.
But to check if the enemy would be able to capture your king next turn, you would need to check if this move enemy would do is legal and so wouldn't lead to check (since players cant make moves that put themselves into check) but then to check if if this enemy move is legal you would need to check if you would be able to capture his king after this movie, but to check it you would need to check if this move legal, and so on and so on.....
How people deal with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.53.69 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to look at if your king is in a position where an enemy piece can theoretically move. There's no requirement to look at if the enemy actually moving there would put him into check. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let chess+1 be like chess, except that you win by actually taking the opponent's king. In chess+1 you don't need to worry about your winning move exposing your own king to attack, because the game is over. Checking whether a chess+1 game can be won on the next half-move is trivial and requires no lookahead. Chess confusingly ends one move early, but the principle is the same: you can't leave the board in a state that would be an immediate win for the opponent in chess+1. -- BenRG (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just incidentally, I used to play this "chess+1" with a friend over lunch when we were in high school. The advantage was that it allowed a greater chance to win through your opponent's stupidity (i.e. failing to notice a check), which of course was great fun. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, when looking if the enemy could hypothetically capture you if you move to square X, the player will check the if the enemy would be able to win the game under chess +1 rule on the next half move (assuming you move to square X), but when checking if your own move is valid you must check if its valid under normal chess rules? A very confuse ruleset. You MUST win under normal chess rules for the sake of wining, but enemy can win under chess+1 for the sake of looking if the move you make will be illegal or not.201.79.48.202 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is very simple - you cannot make a move which leaves your own king in check. If you did so, your opponents next move would be to take your king - which is the same as checkmate and the end of the game. Whether taking your king exposed your opponent's king to check is irrelevant: when your king is taken the game is over, you have lost, and have no possibility of taking your opponents king even if it is exposed to one of your remaining pieces.109.150.174.93 (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a reference desk, the FIDE Laws of Chess say:

3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

5.1 a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.

3.9 is not relevant to the question due to 5.1 a. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the OP is asking if the only winning move is not to play uhhlive (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I struggled to understand the question. I read it three times (and the answers). I think the OP is asking how you can be sure that the move you've just made is legal, because you can't be certain that you've not left yourself in check? If so, the answer is, many beginners do make this precise mistake, but a reasonably competent chess player would notice. So the answer is, don't worry about it and play more. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White is not allowed to move pawn.

No, the question is based on a misunderstanding of the rules. The poster thinks white is allowed to move the pawn in the diagram, because black will expose his king to check if he then moves the bishop to capture the white king. But white is not allowed to move the pawn. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Japanese variant of chu shogi has a similar problem. There is a rule that you can only use a lion to capture an enemy lion when recapture is impossible; so if the lion is protected by another lion, and attacked by another piece, you then have to check if the recapture is legal. But the resolution is different, presumably because the lion is not the "goal piece" that you are trying to capture in chu shogi. (You can play on without it; it's just that its capture is restricted because it spices up the game.) In chess, pinned pieces give check, as the game of "chess+1" ends when your king is lost, and gives you no opportunity to retaliate. Double sharp (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Is" on film posters

Just noticed that some old film posters used to advertise the main character in the form of "Foo is [lead role]", such as "Kathy Shower is Robo-C.H.I.C." or "Suzie China is the Oriental Vixen". What's the approximate time period when such bygone taglines were used? The last I saw is on the poster for the 1990 movie aka Robo C.H.I.C. aka Cyber-C.H.I.C. Brandmeister^talk 22:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Al Pacino IS Scarface" (1983) [1] springs to mind. Alansplodge (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Only Live Twice ("Sean Connery IS James Bond") gets us back to 1967. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Wallace and Gromit soundtracks

Is there a wallace and gromit soundtrack for The Wrong Trousers? Or any track from that film available anywhere except just the theme tune? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.76.174 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2] says that apart from the theme the soundtrack is all well-known pieces of music, which are all widely available. --Viennese Waltz 10:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks But that's not the case, there's specific "Wrong Trousers" music played when the wrong trousers are walking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.76.174 (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found Sheet Music - Wallace and Gromit. It includes two themes (with sound files) from The Wrong Trousers: Gromit Gets a Present by Katie Owen and Train Chase by Julian Nott. Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, it seems that a sound track recording wasn't published for The Wrong Trousers, but I did find an interesting article; JULIAN NOTT’S NICE MUSIC. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to repair a Memorex MRXI cassette with no screws

The tape has broken in my cassette. The cassette DOES NOT have screws to be able to open it. How can I open this cassette? Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.79.82 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [3] is a video titled "How To Open Welded Cassette Tapes" - hope that helps. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not that force on aged plastics! Some can be cracked easily by forcing the capstan drive window. Also knock the weld with plastic handle of a screwdriver or similar to open without damage to any of the parts. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of music considered the worst

4 days ago I asked this question about the song Star Trekkin by The Firm on the talkpage, but so far no response. All I wanted to know is; could this song be added or am I one of few who think this song is absolutely terrible? Due to circumstances I don't wanna explain, I'm not able to verify any sources or other information, so I hope someone would be so kind to do this for me. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a great list! The song and video are here [4]. Sure, lots of people don't like it. I can't find it on any formal lists at the moment. I found discussion threads where some people mention it should be considered one of the worst. But the link got filtered and its not RS anyway. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how funny it looks when you say Wow, that's a great list! about the worst songs in the world!? Is your taste in music that bad? But seriously, what is RS? I'm from the Netherlands, my English ain't that bad but I don't know a lot of abbreviations, so... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather different thing to like a list, compared to like a thing that is listed ;) As for the rest: sorry, I meant WP:RS, which is Wikipedia abreviation, not even common in regular English. My point is that 1) I agree the song is bad and many others do too but 2) we need to be able to cite a reliable source before we can add the song to that article. 3) If you find the song appearing on a magazine or prominent website's "worst list" then we can add it to the list. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music is very subjective indeed. I know you don't like that song but I do, so I wouldn't have it on there, and I reckon I'm as much an expert as you are. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the list does say "considered" worst, and at present it has pretty decent citations to who is doing the considering. I agree we shouldn't add things to the list based on our own personal opinions. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why I asked it overhere to have others involved in this. But as said before, I hope someone else comes up with a reliable source because I'm not able to search for one due to my restrictions. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a (fairly well sourced) List of films considered the worst, I just don't know if music critiquing has the same sort of notability as movie reviews. In that I, anecdotally, can name more than a couple professional movie reviewers off the top of my head but not one that does music. uhhlive (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, a movie is what it is. But is a song inherently terrible, or does it depend on who's singing it? "Gentle on My Mind" was a pretty nice song, but I recall Ethel Merman trying to sing it on some variety show in the 60s, and it was absolutely wretched. But that doesn't mean she was a bad singer - just that this song was not suitable to her style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also So bad it's good (it's about films but applies equally to pop music). Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, The Ethel Merman Disco Album probably does deserve a spot on the list we're discussing! 97.93.100.146 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there is nothing to be found about this track (or the one mentioned later) on any website? I'm getting the feeling that this subject is fading into the background... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SemanticMantis answered this above. If you can find a reliable source that describes it in these terms, we can add it. Otherwise it's just opinion and Wikipedia doesn't do (or shouldn't do) opinion. See WP:NPOV and, probably the granddaddy of all our policies, WP:V. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what I said before. I'm, due to restrictions, not able to verify anything. My first question was if someone else could do this for me. But if there's nothing to be found, too bad, but not a big deal. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

Music in an Olympics ice skating video

This is a video, from the official Olympics YouTube channel, showing figure skater Sarah Hughes's long program in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, for which she ended up winning the gold medal. Her original program music was a medley of Maurice Ravel's Daphnis et Chloé and Sergei Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" and "Piano Concerto No. 2". However, in this video, the music has been replaced with a different instrumental piece. Does anyone know what the new music is? (Several commenters on the video also ask, and none of them know either.) —SeekingAnswers (reply) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In viewing all those highlight videos from the 2002 games that the official YouTube channel uploaded, it sounds to me that they more likely either commissioned some composer to overlay all those clips with new background music, found some copyrighted background music to use, or they used a set of royalty free background music. Either way, the instrumental pieces in all those clips (especially this one of Steven Bradbury (speed skater)) reminds me of generic background music for commercials. Sorry, I can't help you other than that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know all this. But even a lot of trailer music and other production music is identifiable and, increasingly, commercially sold to the wider public, and the music for this video sounds very familiar; I just can't quite place it. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What song/music video was this?

Song from the late 1990s. The video featured someone dressed like an old-fashioned (19th/earth 20thC) butterfly hunter. AT the end of the song, he got magically trapped in a book. Iapetus (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the video to accompany Enya's "Caribbean Blue" - unless there is another video that has that same kind of sequence. MarnetteD|Talk 21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, that's it. (I had had a feeling it might have been Enya, and was looking at her videos on Youtube - but ran in the typical YouTube problem of other people's mix videos overtaking the official ones). Iapetus (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help Iapetus. With all of the Maxfield Parrish influences on its visiual style it is a favorite of mine. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The visual effect is enhanced if the viewer happens to have ingested LSD recently, or so I've heard. —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

I'm looking for a game

It was a PC game from the early 2000's (May be wrong but I know it's old) There is a story where you are supposed to save creatures to rebuild their village. It was a match-3 game with rising blocks where a devil-like creature (of the same kind) was using a staff to spawn a row of blocks on the bottom. There are several creatures each level and a cage on the top of each one of them. If one of the creatures gets caught, you fail the level. You can save the creatures by removing all blocks under them and they have a different action when you do so (i.e. running forward and "colliding" with the screen, running right and falling, running left slapping the devil and running right, etc.) The blocks were rectangular and more wide than they are high. You are able to move around the blocks freely without needing a match, you can also "move blocks" from a higher column to a lower one by moving them to the lower column and making them fall. 38.103.157.165 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This game might be found by looking at Category:Match_3_games and Category:Tile-matching_video_games. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at every single one of the games in the Puzzle games, Tile matching games and Match 3 games and it's not there. I definitely need someone that knows it because this is not the only place I have asked206.167.24.11 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rulers Worry About Money

In Chapter 11, page 184, of Polgara the Sorceress, it says: "Why is it that every ruler in the world spends all his time worrying about money?" Why does it ask this question?

Bonupton (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Eddings is fond of this kind of homespun philosophical musing through the mouths of his characters, particularly the ones who are 'sensible'. Here, he's presumably whimsically wondering why those with power don't spend more time worrying about their populations than worrying about money. It's a fairly silly argument, as if you run out of money, you end up being unable to feed people, as the North Koreans could tell you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the author means the dictators are worrying about their own money, which is not used to better their peoples' lives in any shape or form. --Xuxl (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Eddings writes fun pageturners; he's not John Maynard Keynes. Although if he was, there'd be a lot more people reading economics books. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kleptocracy may be relevant. While leaders of most nations wouldn't go that far, they do have an amazing way of getting wealthier as their citizens get poorer. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All rulers, or at least all competent rulers, do spend a large amount of their time worrying about funding the expenses of government, which I believe has actually come as a surprise to many neophyte politicians. (Taxes are usually the primary but not the only form of funding.) While the purposes to which the monies raised may differ (corrupt politicians have corrupt purposes, honest politicians do not), the fund-raising process itself is not fundamentally different. John M Baker (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honest politicians??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that honest politicians don't exist, you ensure that they never will. You have to be willing and able to identify and reward honesty in politics. To refuse to do this is to work actively against honesty in the public sphere. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If we assume them to be honest, they can get away with dishonesty. If we assume them to be dishonest, and put in enough checks on them to counter this tendency, like Freedom of Information Acts, Abuse of authority laws with severe penalties, and whistleblower laws to protect those who turn them in, etc., then we can hopefully put in enough of a disincentive to dishonesty to get them to behave. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

And when this Utopian world finally arrives, will we then be able safely to assume politicians to be honest? Who will make that call? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Utopian ? What's Utopian about assuming the worst of politicians and taking actions to at least limit the damage they cause ? StuRat (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Fat Boy Slim

Can anyone answer my question about Norman Cook's name? See Talk:Norman_Cook#.22Fat_Boy_Slim.22. Please answer there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this NPR interview, Cook says: "It doesn't mean anything. I've told so many different lies over the years about it I can't actually remember the truth. It's just an oxymoron - a word that can't exist. It kind of suits me - it's kind of goofy and ironic." Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love it, thanks. I'll add that to the article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawrence Welk show once featured a rather rotund performer named "Tiny Little, Jr." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Biggie Smalls. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackson 5 vs. The Jacksons

After reading the article Blame It on the Boogie, I've become confused. What's the difference between The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons? They're obviously related, but how? It appears Mick Jackson (singer) is a different person from Michael Jackson. Are the two related or connected in any way? JIP | Talk 20:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the articles, The Jacksons = The Jackson 5, and Mick Jackson was never a member of that group and isn't a member of the Jackson family. He happens to have the same last name, and he wrote and recorded a song that was also recorded by The Jacksons. -- BenRG (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] There were 6 (American) Jackson brothers (and some sisters). The eldest three brothers formed a singing group called (surprise!) The Jackson Brothers.

When two of their younger brothers (including Michael Jackson) became old enough, the joined the group, which was renamed The Jackson 5.

Later one of the original 3 (Jermaine) went solo, and the remaining 4, joined by the 6th brother, signed with a different record label and were re-named The Jacksons. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, but it's all fully explained in the Jackson 5 article you linked above – see the diagram at the bottom of it.)

Mick (Michael George) Jackson is an English singer/songwriter (possibly born and certainly later resident in Germany), who co-wrote Blame it on the Boogie. It's nothing more that an amusing coincidence that shortly after he released it himself, it was bought by the management of The Jacksons and recorded by them. Although our article on him doesn't contain a photo, googling "Mick Jackson (singer)" readily reveals that he is of conventional white European appearance, whereas the American Jackson family are not (despite Michael Jackson's later efforts :-)), so a familial relationship seems unlikely. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jackson was certainly born. DuncanHill (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible that the Jackson 5 family name came from slave days, when their ancestor(s) was owned by somebody named Jackson, who might have been related to Mick Jackson. And, since slave owners impregnating slaves was not unknown, they might even be distant blood relatives. However, "Jackson" is such a common name, that any relationship seems unlikely. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the bands were related. But who is it that sings the Jacksons' version of "Blame It on the Boogie"? Is it the famous Michael Jackson himself, before he went on a solo career? Or is it this English Mick Jackson fellow? JIP | Talk 22:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not Mick Jackson! Note that both Michael and Jermaine Jackson released some of theiir solo records in parallel with their membership of The Jackson 5 / The Jacksons – it wasn't mutually exclusive. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jackson wrote the song.

One version was released by "The Jacksons", with Michael Jackson as lead singer.

Another version was released by Mick Jackson. No relation.

In the UK, those two records were both released in August 1978, resulting in a "Battle of the ~~Boogy~~Boogie" between the two. That's covered in the article, "Blame It on the Boogie". 81.108.18.234 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they have been battling over a boogy, when the song was about the boogie? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, sorry, typo. Fixed. 81.108.18.234 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

Who is the girl in "Norwegian Wood"??

"I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me??"

In this song, whose most famous version is by The Beatles. I want to know who the girl is. Until recently, I thought she was the narrator's significant other. But I just learned something that shows that this cannot be true.

In the 1990's, this song was covered by Alanis Morissette. If the girl were a significant other, this cover of the song would have started with the lyrics "I once had a guy, or should I say, he once had me??" But this is not so; Alanis's version preserves the Beatles' original lyrics, so the girl can't be a significant other. Who is this girl?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian_Wood_(This_Bird_Has_Flown)#Composition --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assumption that failing to change the gender means the original didn't refer to a significant other. There's lots of "elevator music" where they've taken a man singing a love song to a woman and rerecorded it with a female singer, without bothering to change the gender. I suppose they could be interpreted as now being lesbian songs, but more likely they are just too lazy to change it (it might not be that simple to change, if it affects the rhyming). And, in the case of iconic songs, it just seems wrong to mess with the lyrics. Take Danny Boy, originally a love song to a man, sung by a woman. Would you change that to "Daniela Girl" when sung by a man ? (One record did suggest "Eily Dear" as the version sung by a man, but it never really caught on.) StuRat (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's often sung by women, "Danny Boy" is reported in some circles to be a father bidding farewell to his son. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's assumption seems to be that anyone who covers a song must understand exactly what the songwriter intended the lyrics to mean. It seems an unwarranted assumption that Alanis Morissette has a deep insight into the meaning of the lyrics, and that her failure to change the lyrics implies something about what John Lennon meant when he wrote them. Mnudelman (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "bird" was commonly used by Brits of that era to refer to a woman, analogous to the long-standing American term "chick". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Clancys singing a song that certainly sounds like it was intended to be sung by a woman. But this was not so unusual until very recent times when people became more "gay aware" and might read things into things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you think the girl is a "significant other"? I cannot produce reliable sources to support my claim, but, I believe many people think it's a song about casual sex. People have interpreted "norwegian wood" as a code for "knowing she would" - as in... knowing this 'bird' would have sex with him. The lyrics make more sense in that context - "I once had a girl"... to 'have' in the biblical sense, viz. to have sex with. I cannot support these notions with any evidence, but I believe most hippies familiar with English slang and nuance from that era would interpret the song in that way.

I am disappointed that the OP said, of Morisette's cover, "If the girl were a significant other, this cover of the song would have started with the lyrics "I once had a guy". Why on Earth do you think a female can't have a female significant other? 81.108.18.234 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or that a singer can't sing a song that tells a true story about the writer unless it's also true of the singer? —Tamfang (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChuckleVision - Get out of it! catchphrase

In ChuckleVision, what episodes did the character Get out of it use his catchphrase? Agent C20 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes and Sidney Paget

I noticed a contradiction between the Finnish articles fi:Sherlock Holmes and fi:Sidney Paget. The former claims Paget drew his visualisation of Holmes using his own brother as a model. The latter claims Paget drew Holmes based purely on his own imagination, not using anyone as a model. I've left a talk page message on the Finnish article about Holmes, but I still want to ask here. Which is right? Did Paget use his own brother as a model or did he not? JIP | Talk 22:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The English article Sidney Paget#The Strand illustrations says, with a citation:

Despite the commonly held belief that Paget based Holmes' appearance on that of Walter, his brother Henry Marriott (H.M.) Paget denied this was the case. "The assertion that the artist's brother Walter, or any other person, served as model for the portrait of Sherlock Holmes is incorrect."^[1]

^ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 1912

Loraof (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Logan's Run (TV series)

I posted on the article talk page without success... what does "The series initially had solid ratings but CBS constantly pre-empted the show which caused the series to lose much of its audience." mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means the network didn't air the show at the regularly scheduled time because it had something else it wanted to show instead. That tends to annoy fans, and if it happens too often, they just stop watching. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the wording to "The series initially had solid ratings but CBS constantly varied the time at which it was broadcast, which caused ..." --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not necessarily the same thing. The episode table does not indicate times, but the dates show that it was on Friday nights for three weeks, then moved to Mondays, where it remained until cancellation, so it doesn't seem to be a matter of varied times. On the other hand, there were only two episodes show in November 1977, and only one in December. By the time it came back with any regularity in January 1978, the fan base had probably moved on. --LarryMac | Talk 13:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it right. Pre-emption doesn't mean different time, it means not shown at all. So it was aired infrequently enough that the typical fan became a "Person of Disinterest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Here is a preemption announcement from Monday, October 24, 1977, with Donald Moffat and Heather Menzies stating that Logan's Run was not being shown that night to make room for a couple of Halloween cartoon specials (Charlie Brown & Fat Albert), but will return the following Monday. I've restored the previous wording to the article. Thanks, Tagishsimon, for trying to clarify the wording, but while both preemption and changing time slots often result in a decline in ratings, they are not equivalent. -- ToE 16:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the trouble still remains, @ToE:, that there's considerable lack of clarity as to what the sentence containing the work "pre-emption" means. In plain language, the reader on the Clapham omnibus does not understand the use of the word pre-empt in this context. Perhaps you or someone else might like to edit the sentence so that pre-emption is explained in terms most users can understand? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in keeping with WP:ENGVAR, an article about an American TV show should be written for the reader on the Los Angeles freeway, not the one on the Clapham omnibus. To me, "preempt" is the ordinary word for this practice and does not need explanation. If Wikipedia had an article on it I'd suggest linking to that, but it doesn't, only on some related topics. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the logic which seemed to imply it would not have been cancelled had it not been pre-empted. Presumably they chose to pre-empt that particular show, versus all the other possibilities, because it had low ratings anyway. A possible exception would be if it was pre-empted by things the network couldn't control, like emergencies/natural disasters. Having a slot after certain sports, like football, also means the slot is constantly cut into by overtime games (although you'd think they would just schedule a post-game show long enough to take up any overtime to avoid that). But, in this case, the Halloween specials could probably have aired any time that week, so it sounds like they already had low ratings. I suppose one could also argue that even if it had low ratings, they would have increased with time, had the program been shown more regularly. Fortunately now, with Netflix and such, you can watch a new series all at once, if you choose, or whenever you want. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had the same thought. But I have not researched the matter, and, it appears, neither have you. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The series initially had solid ratings but CBS sometimes move the day on which the show aired, which caused the series to lose much of its audience."? I've removed the "constantly" as it's presumably unfounded. Does that meet American English ENGVAR requirements without using a term we can't explain and isn't intelligible to many of our readers? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Beaker Questions

In the British television programme The Story of Tracy Beaker, why was the lead character Tracy Beaker put into care? Agent C20 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her background is described at The Story of Tracy Beaker#Background. Rojomoke (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long has Tracy been living in care? Agent C20 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Girls - Season 1: Serious content/Not a rapist among us

1. In the comedy-drama series Gilmore Girls, what kind of serious content was in each episode of the 1st season? Agent C20 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'serious content'? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. In the episode 'Christopher Returns', when Lorelai opened her parents' house door with keys and her mother asks if she let herself in, Lorelai says 'It's okay, Mom. Look. Not a rapist among us.' What did she mean by that? Agent C20 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChuckleVision - The Chuckmobile

What episode did the chuckmobile appear in? Agent C20 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 1912

[1]

@@ Line 305: / Line 305: @@
 . In the episode 'Christopher Returns', when Lorelai opened her parents' house door with keys and her mother asks if she let herself in, Lorelai says 'It's okay, Mom. Look. Not a rapist among us.' What did she mean by that? [[User:Agent C20|Agent C20]] ([[User talk:Agent C20|talk]]) 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
+== ChuckleVision - The Chuckmobile  ==
+What episode did the chuckmobile appear in? [[User:Agent C20|Agent C20]] ([[User talk:Agent C20|talk]]) 22:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)