Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 November 13

= November 13 =

Home team advantage at the Olympics
I had asked a question about the Olympics (up above). That question led me to this medals table: United States at the Olympics ... as well as other similar tables for other nations. In this table, you can clearly see that when the USA was the host nation for the Olympic Games, their medal count soared off the charts -- when compared to prior and subsequent Games. What exactly would account for this? I can understand at least a slight "home team advantage" ... but these numbers seem almost incredible. Can anyone offer thoughts as to why the medal counts would skyrocket so in the years of hosting? Statistically speaking, they must seem "wrong". I get the basic idea of home team advantage ... more crowd support; more enthusiasm; more fans; more cheering; more interest; more momentum; etc. But, how do these intangibles translate into superior athletic performances at these statistically improbable levels? (Example 1: USA hosted the 1904 Games and won 242 medals.  In both the previous and the subsequent Games, USA won only 47 medals each.  That is a difference of five times! Example 2:  USA hosted the 1932 Games and won 103 medals.  In both the previous and the subsequent Games, USA won only 56 medals each.  That is a difference of two times.  Example 3:  USA hosted the 1984 Games and won 174 medals.  In both the previous and the subsequent Games, USA won only 94 medals each.  That is a difference of two times.)  Thoughts? Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Especially in early games, the participants may have lacked the money to travel to other countries or the ability to take enough time off from their day jobs to get there (the number of entrants in each event would give you a good idea if this is the case). There's also the all-important ability to train at the actual facilities to be used for the event.  In skiing, for example, knowing every nuance of the course can easily make the hundredth of a second difference it takes to win. StuRat (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A country is also allowed to have more of its own athletes participate if they are hosting. That gives them a better chance of winning. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are specific circumstances for each of the games listed. The 1904 St. Louis Games were poorly attended, with the large majority of the participants Americans. The medal count cannot be compared to that of more truly international games that preceded and followed. The 1932 Games in Los Angeles were held far away from Europe, again, limiting participation of their athletes in the days of travel by boat. The 1984 games were marked by the boycott of the East block. The US was facing much weaker competition than in 1976 or 1988, and got a slew of medals in events usually dominated by Soviets, East Germans, Hungarians etc. I think that the domination was much less marked in Atlanta in 1996, where such special circumstances did not apply.
 * Independent of these special circumstances, the host country will always want to do well in its own games and will take special measures to ensure that, including alloting additional money to allow athletes to train and take part in international competitions before the games. That makes a tremendous difference in performance, particularly in the non-glamor events where athletes otherwise have to hold a job to sustain themselves, taking time away from training or competition. There is also the positive effect of being allocated a slot in every event without the need to qualify. The athletes can then focus on doing well at the Olympics themelves, rather than undergo a sometimes grueling qualification process. --Xuxl (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's for hoping. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It happens in lots of other international events as well. Consider the FIFA World Cup.  The home nation either wins, or does surprisingly well, more often then they should.  Six of the 18 world cups have been won by the home nation, including 5 of those where the host nation won their first ever world cup, and 2 of those where the host nation won their only world cup.  Indeed, look at 2002, where South Korea came in 4th; though they had never won a single match in World Cup play before.  Even more broadly, no European team has ever won a World Cup outside of Europe, despite the fact that UEFA has the most entries in nearly every World Cup, and only once did a Non-Euopean team win in Europe (Brazil winning in Sweeden in 1958).  Being close to home seems to, at least based on statistics, present a big bump in major international competitions.  -- Jayron  32  21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Canada failed to win a single gold medal at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal or the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And Yet,  just  two  years  later, Canandian pride  was  restored  with  the  First  Place  on  the  table  with  45  Gold  medals,  above  what  they  usually  get,  at  the  1978  Edmonton Commonwealth  Games. I recall at school we  were taken  out  of  class ( yay! )  to  listen to our favourite swimmer, Rebecca Perrott, attmept to win one of her races over there for New Zealand. I recall  she  was  not  successful in that particular race, and the teachers were not happpy, but then again. she did win a gold, silver, and two bronze at  the same games,  so  good on her. That day she was only 17 - I was only ten, but when you're that age, 17  is old  and  wise. Our teachers wanted to give us positive role models to look up to, and she, along with John Walker, Kiri Te Kanawa, Richard Hadlee, Edmund Hillary and later Susan deVoy and Barbara Kendal, were certainly all that. So it tends also to be the case in Commonwealth Games, that hometown advantage works. Those games have mostly been see sawed between England and Australia winning the medals table, with nowadays Australia punching above its weight in beating more than twice and populous England. New Zealand has also done better than usual in the three times  it has hosted the event, the best place it has has been third in  Auckland in 1950,  with ten golds, but its fourth in 1990  got us 17  golds  -  one from a 14 year old gymnast filling in for someone else. Of course, more medals are available these days. I recall my brother and I being taken to the Christchurch Games in 1974 soon after we shifted here - even seeing adverts for the coming games in our shop in Kaiapoi. We lived in Ohoka Road, right by the shops, opposite the Motorway bridge and the new Kaiapoi High School. New Zealand was fourth in 1974 with nine golds. Even allowing for the fact that Australia has about four to five times the population of New Zealand, they tend to win more medals per capita. When that happens, people should not sulk or hate such a country, but instead work out how to beat them. In the end, home town advantage only works if the team is still good enough. There can be no thought of rigging an Olympics or other games, since there are international judges and officials there, watching everything. At least we hope so. As long when an athlete is caught with steroids in their blood, no one believes all the pathetic excuses they come up with. In the end, most people caught out will actually be guilty. And as for home town advantage, why do countries fight so hard for it, if it means nothing ? Prestige, in hosting it, but a greater haul of medals is a good incentive. I was glad to hear Rio got the Olympics. I have nothing against America, but come on, they have had it twice already in the past quarter century - that's just hogging them. Let someone else have a go. This is the first time it has gone to South America, and at least now the Authorities there have good motivation to clean up their crime ridden " City of God ". After all that, New Zealand might like a shot at the Olympics - or at least for now the Soccer World Cup  -  save us all the nerves we had coming up against worthy Bahrain the other day. The Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz
in the film wizard of oz do thay every say dorothys full name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.209.36 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the IMDB Quotes page for the film, there is this bit of dialog -
 * Glinda, the Good Witch of the North: Are you a good witch, or a bad witch?
 * Dorothy: I'm not a witch at all. I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas.
 * However, IMDB is not always completely reliable, so another source might be helpful. -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gale is a nice last name for Dorothy, considering the means by which she was transported to Oz. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dorothy Gale is our article on the subject. Note that the books didn't reveal her last name until the 3rd book in the series, while the movie is based on the 1st book.  However, the movie might very well have used her last name, as IMDB says, since the movie had many other variations from the book (such as many colorful items added, like her ruby slippers, which were silver shoes in the book, to show off the color format).   StuRat (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That and The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). But neither article tells you whether her full name is spoken in the movie.  --Anonymous, 19:47 UTC, Friday the 13th of November, 2009.


 * Larry is right that some IMDB content is not completely reliable; this is, I think, particularly true of the quotes sections, where I have seen many small errors. Here is another unreliable source: this page claims to be a transcription of the movie's script &mdash; specifically, the "Cutting Continuity Script, Taken From Printer's Dupe, Last revised March 15, 1939" &mdash; and it includes almost the same dialogue as above, but with two additional words.  Glinda says "Are you a good witch, or a bad witch?" and Dorothy replies "Who, me?  Why, I'm not a witch at all.  I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas."


 * Anyone have a DVD or tape of the movie to really confirm the point? The scene is the one where Dorothy has just arrived in Oz.  Glinda arrives on the scene (in a giant bubble, which, incidentally, is not mentioned in the script I just cited.  --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, Friday the 13th of November, 2009.


 * No, but I'll just mention that, although we're not related, I'm a friend of hers. :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I just checked on my DVD. It's as stated above... "Who, me? Why, I'm not a witch at all.  I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas."Popcorn II (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The film itself, which is widely available on DVD (and was just played on TBS earlier this evening), would be the most obvious source for any dialogue from the film. There was also a complete rendition of the script published a few years ago, including footnotes about deleted scenes and such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dodger Blue song lyrics
Where can I find the words and music to "Dodger Blue" or "Los Angeles Dodger Blue" ?71.213.239.68 (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Computer game
What is the most recent computer game to use MIDI music? jc iindyysgvxc  (my contributions) 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean commercial game? I've no idea, in either case.  I'd imagine some phone games use something similar to MIDI.--Leon (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Music in Nissan Versa commercial
Can anyone tell me what is the name of the song played in this commercial for Nissan Versa? David Pro (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I Need to Know by Marc Anthony, it even says it in the comments to that video. Nanonic (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)