Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:22, 10 October 2017

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.

October 4

How come in sports like basketball, a single player can make the difference in success, but not in football?

I've noticed that it's common in certain sports, particularly basketball, for a single player to make the difference between championship contenders and being cellar teams. Theoretically, a bad team one year could become a playoff contender or even a championship contender with the addition of one or two good players. Conversely, the departure or injury of even one key player could ruin a team's chances. By contrast, in other sports (like football), while one player could make some difference, success or struggles seem to stem more from overall factors as opposed to a single player. For example, in the case of Leicester's 2016-17 struggles, while N'Golo Kante's departure from the team was cited to be the biggest cause, there were also other factors that affected the team's situation; meaning Kante's departure was not the sole reason. By contrast, in the 2012 NBA playoffs, Derrick Rose's injury was pretty much enough for the Bulls to be defeated in the first round, despite having the 1st seed. Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that kind of football. Perhaps the level of play in soccer is so high that players' skill levels in top leagues are closer together (Leicester is/recently was Premier League right?) Also, 1 player is 1/5th of the basketball starters, 1/11th of the soccer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every sport is different. You might have the greatest pitcher in the history of the world, someone who wins every game - but he's only going to get a fraction of the wins a ball team needs to qualify for the post-season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In basketball, every player is involved in nearly every play, whereas that doesn't seem to be the case in football (and baseball). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because in Basketball, a player on the floor is 1/5th responsible for his team's success, where as in football he's 1/11th. 1/5 is a larger number than 1/11. Math is hard.--Jayron 32 11:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a factor but not the only one. In basketball a ball possession usually ends with a shot with a good chance of scoring, even if some of the team is mediocre. A star player can take a large part of the shots. In football you need a team to set up scoring chances. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is the pace of the game. In basketball, scores happen continuously. The goal is score at a faster rate than the opponent. You can't stop them from scoring. You just try to slow them down. This is caused by the shot clock. Once your team has the ball, they must attempt to score in 24 seconds. The fast pace means that in basketball the ball moves quickly from player to player. No single player gets to dominate the ball. In football (soccer), the pace is completely different. Scores of 0-0 are common. A score of 1-0 or 0-1 is expected. A score of 3-0 is a blowout. With the pace being so slow, a single player can dominate the ball. If you added a shot clock to football that required the offense to attempt a goal in 24 seconds, the pace would increase and players would share the ball more. In football (gridiron), it is a completely different game. Only a few players ever touch the ball, but those who rarely touch the ball (such as the linemen) are the ones most involved in every play. If you have a bad offensive guard, it weakens your line and you can't run the ball to the weak side or protect he quarterback to try a good pass. Every play becomes a panic to escape the weak side of the line. Any weakness is easily exploited and drastically limits what may be done. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it in the most general terms, some sports rely more on teamwork, and others don't. For example, a relay race relies on every member of the team, while with some other "team sports", they just take the top individual score or two, and in this case the scores of the rest of the team don't matter at all. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also compare baseball and cricket. In baseball, a guy only bats once every nine batters But in cricket, a good batsman can stay in there and score a whole mess of runs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who dressed the best?

PopCrush had an online voting poll. It was to determine who it the Best Dressed Queen of 2017. Camila Cabello and Ariana Grande made it to the Finals. The voting closed the other day. But PopCrush didn't reveal the results. Who won the Best Dressed Queen of 2017?2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd "final" round of voting ended Monday, October 2 at 11:59 p.m. EST: [1] -- you still need to wait for the final results to be published. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With a contest title like that, I'd expect entries from RuPaul, etc. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

In the meantime, be sure to visit the site often ...and click on the ads! ;) — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And once again,shameful overlooking of Elizabeth II here... Lemon martini (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a foul?

[2] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase the old adage: "your right to swing your basketball ends where my nose begins". It looks like he just missed his nose. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of ANY basketball Personal foul that does not require physical contact. There is no contact made in that video, thus no foul. There is the possibility of a technical foul, but I can assure you there's nothing there that qualifies as a technical foul. --Jayron 32 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems it's not (I don't know the rules to the last letter) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, it looks to me like part of his hand and part of the ball go behind the defender's head. So I think the perspective is messing you up, and he didn't do this right into the guy's face, but off to the side. It just looks like a close call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Fact or fiction

Loudwire has a series of videos on Youtube entitled 'Wikipedia: Fact or fiction'. Here is an example with two members of Stone Sour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7S5XgqC-6Q What do you think about editing wikipedia articles on the basis oftheir content? Munci (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions asking for opinions should not be answered in this venue. --Jayron 32 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where should it be asked then? Munci (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

October 7

prophetic dreams in Sandman

Is there any prophetic dream (a dream predicting future events) in The Sandman or any of the spinoffs? Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carrero, how about Johanna's dream while she´s rescuing (the head of) Orpheus? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems great, thanks. I would like to know if there are any others. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean prophetic in real life, or just within the "universe" of these characters? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean just within the universe of these characters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not have access to the comic books? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the comic books and I read the main 75 issues + a few spin-offs. But I don't remember any examples of prophetic dreams (there's a scene when John Dee uses Dream's Ruby to order people to tell the future and they do with remarkable accuracy, but I believe this does not count, it's kinda dream-related but they are not dreaming). There could be instances of prophetic dreams I don't remember. Plus there could be instances of prophetic dreams in the spin-offs I didn't read. To be fair, usually Destiny is the one concerned with knowing about the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carrero Yeah, knowing the future isn´t Dreams main thing, though he has that gate of horn. Also, Augustus and talking to Andros at the end of the Orpheus-story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the original music?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a098ReqIdtk, heard it somewhere else as classical, what's the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Money is tight (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the comments underneath the video itself from over 5 years ago, it appears to be based on Zadok the Priest. Nanonic (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Zadok; what have they done to him? Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, really like this song Money is tight (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Sony Pictures

On September 1, 1987, The Coca-Cola Company announced plans to spin off its assets of Columbia Pictures, which it had owned since 1982. Under this arrangement, Coca-Cola would sell its entertainment assets to TriStar Pictures, of which it owned 39.6%. Tri-Star would be renamed to Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (CPE), with Coca-Cola owning 49%, its shareholders owning 31%, and Tri-Star's shareholders owning 20%. A new company was formed in early 1988 with the Tri-Star name to take over the studio's operations.

Now, which studio does "the studio's" exactly refer to and does the phrase "Coca-Cola would sell its entertainment assets" imply in fact that the Columbia shares were Coca-Cola's only entertainment assets? I'm a bit confused...--Tuchiel (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this same question pop up a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2017 September 30 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not all questions have been resolved yet. Hence, I've only resumed those here. Best wishes--Tuchiel (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused on how Coca-Cola can own something its shareholders don't, or vice versa. I double-checked shareholder and share (finance). They seem to be about sharing, but this deal doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

If I'm reading it correctly, the 49% of Columbia will be owned by Coca Cola, and therefore indirectly it's shareholders, while Coca Cola's shareholders also directly get 31% of Columbia. The difference is that the Coca Cola board of directors will have no say in the 31%'s votes, while they will represent the interest of the 49%. As a practical matter, this means the Coca Cola board can't just dictate what Columbia does, they would need to put proposals before Columbia's board and/or all the shareholders. (A good thing, too, or else every scene in Columbia films might well have featured characters drinking Coke.) StuRat (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So "Coca-Cola" is shorthand for the board of directors, and for the whole company? Does the inner group get a bigger dividend per share than the "normal" owners? If not, I can't see why the 31% would be more or less inclined than the 49% to sell more Coca-Cola (the product) in movies (or do anything that makes them all richer). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

Just let me wonder, this is Tuchiel's time. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

Besides the matter of stockholders' votes, another obvious consequence of this arrangement is that the Coca-Cola shareholders who received Columbia stock have the right to sell it. If they don't want to own shares in Columbia, they can sell them for cash. This will not affect Coca-Cola's own ownership of 49% of Columbia.

Similarly, consider the payment of dividends. Each time a company issues a dividend, the money goes to its shareholders in proportion to their number of shares. So 49% of the amount paid out will go directly to the Coca-Cola corporation, while the people who received Columbia shares because they were Coca-Cola shareholders will collectively receive 31% of the total (if none of them sold their Columbia shares, and assuming for simplicity I'm assuming that only common stock is involved.) --69.159.60.147 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orochimaru (Naruto)

As anybody who knows of Japanese mythology, Orochimaru's character represents a lot about stories. I managed to find information about how he is related to the Kusanagi sword and the famous Yamata no Orochi in Google books. However, I have not been able to find anything about where he comes from to add more creation information to the article. Anybody knows of sites that might contain this type of information? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest song fragment

The Hurrian songs is the oldest clomplete song, but what is the oldest song fragment?--2001:B07:6463:31EE:E917:DF39:C94D:7ABC (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Babylonian Nabnitu tablets (circa 1800 BCE), and specifically "Tablet XXXII (often called as U.3011) is a Sumerian-Akkadian text from Ur, and notable as one of the oldest extant documented examples of musical notation". More detail is in The Earliest Musical Notation by David Wulstan, although it gives a later date for the tablets (perhaps things have moved on since 1971 when it was written). Alansplodge (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, our Musical notation#Ancient Near East section gives "The earliest form of musical notation can be found in a cuneiform tablet that was created at Nippur, in Sumer (today's Iraq)". The quoted source doesn't seem to be viewable online. A few more details are at A New Interpretation of the Nippur Music-Instruction Fragments but I can only see a preview. Our Music of Mesopotamia needs a lot of attention. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Good Old Sumer Time..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's my gag. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We must both like to babble on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deploying troops to protect cuneiform tablets from destruction by ISIS threatens to become a wedge issue. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 ::::<small>Hey, that's my gag. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 06:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)</small>
 :::::{{small|We must both like to babble on. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)}}
+:::::::<small>Deploying troops to protect cuneiform tablets from destruction by ISIS threatens to become a [[wedge issue]]. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] ([[User talk:StuRat|talk]]) 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC) </small>

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment: Difference between revisions