Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 January 24

= January 24 =

Blue music video
I remember that there was a blue music video where the black guy was driving a BMW suv. I forgot the name of the song. Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.21.48 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean blue as in blue movies or blue as in the color? And what style/genre was the music, how long ago did you see the video, etc.  If you can give us more details, it may help us find the video.  -- Jayron  32  02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the question means Blue (group) and the black guy was bandmember Simon Webbe. Sorry I don't know the video, but YouTube has a lot of videos by the band. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is okay. I got it. It was Fly by II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.66 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Never at Home ?
Is it true that there has never been a Superbowl in which either of the two teams has played at home ? [[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian Christopher Lilly]] 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That is quite true. Several superbowls have even been played at stadiums which have never served as the primary home stadium for and NFL team ever.  For example, 4 Super Bowls have been at the Rose Bowl and one has been at Stanford Stadium.  The closest a team has ever been to playing at home was the game at Stanford Stadium, Super Bowl XIX, which hosted the San Francisco 49ers, who play only a few miles up the road.  In fact, Stanford Stadium did host one 49ers regular season home game, in 1989 following the Loma Prieta Earthquake, but that was a bit of an exigent situation, and it was several years after the Super Bowl.  See List of Super Bowl champions which contains a full list of stadiums as well.  It should be noted that the pre-Super Bowl NFL championships were always played at one of the two team's home stadium; I believe in even-numbered years it was at the home stadium of the Eastern/American Division/Conference and in odd years it was at the Western/National stadium.  -- Jayron  32  04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for that. My understanding is that the Stadium is chosen years in advance, since I have an American Almanac from late 2007 that gives this year's venue. So is it simply a coincidence that there has never been a home game ? I guess fans of either side would not care where it is, since one is going to spend a fortune on going anyway. [[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian Christopher Lilly]] 05:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the stadium is usually chosen 3-4 years in advance, so it is actually a coincidence that it has never hosted a true "home" team. It should be noted that, given the usual trend (upcoming Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014 excepted) is to play the Super Bowl in either a) a warm weather city or b) a domed stadium.  Even this year's city, Dallas, is a little cold and wintery by most standards, many fans will remember the snowstorm during the 1993 Thanksgiving Classic.  Given that, for example, this years teams (the Steelers and Packers) would likely never, ever get the chance to play a home game.  Based on past trends, the two teams that have stood the best chance would be Miami (the Dolphins have played in 5 Super Bowls and the city has hosted 10 more) and New Orleans (played in one, hosted 10 others).  In fact, given how perrenially good the Colts usually are, next season's Super Bowl may provide the best opportunity for a home-field Super Bowl.  -- Jayron  32  05:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Super Bowl XLV is in Arlington, Texas.) --70.129.130.31 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An upcoming Super Bowl (I'm thinking 2014, but I'm not positive on that) will be played at the New Meadowlands, which is a cold weather stadium. The league pushed through  New York "home game" despite objections about the terrible weather likely to occur there.  It is the home stadium of both the New York Jets and the New York Giants, so there's a double chance of one of them being in the game.   Corvus cornix  talk  06:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, exactly what I said. -- Jayron  32  06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't say the name of the stadium and I, of course, skimmed. :)   Corvus cornix  talk  07:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That excellent - I shall support the Packers since they won the first two and one other, and also due to their being mentioned as the home team for the characters on That '70s Show. I understand they used to play in late January, and I can specifically remember watching some of the 1990 victory by the 49ers on Monday, January the Thirtieth. I am surprised it does not seem to be shown on New Zealand's Sky Sport, but then they may pick up some other network's feed live. Here we are amazed that a game meant to last an hour ( of actual play ) lasts a hang of a lot longer - but I guess people expect that. [[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian Christopher Lilly]] 06:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The game actually features somewhat less than an hour of actual play. There used to be (not sure if it still exists) a service on either NFL.com or ESPN.com that allowed you to watch NFL games in about 30-45 minutes.  They would not only cut out all of the commercial breaks, but also all of the meaningless stuff that happens between the tackle and the breaking of the huddle; when the clock runs but nothing affecting the action actually happens.  Just last week, I had used my new DVR to record I game I didn't get a chance to watch live; making judicious use of the "skip forward" feature I was able to watch the entire game in about 45 minutes and didn't miss a single play.  Super_Bowl_XLV covers some of the broadcast partners worldwide; perhaps you can find one that your cable/satelite provider also has, if New Zealand does not carry the game natively.  -- Jayron  32  06:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the Packers are actually a pretty good choice this year for a team to take an interest in. They provide a combination of a really hot quarterback in Aaron Rodgers and a rock-solid defense, run by legendary Defensive coach Dom Capers, a great pair of linebackers in AJ Hawk and Clay Matthews III and a dynamic, game changing defensive back in the person of Charles Woodson.  Of course, you can make the exact same arguement for the Steelers by replacing every name with their equivalent position (Ben Rothlisberger, Dick LeBeau, James Farrior, James Harrison, and Troy Polamalu).  In fact, just on comparables, this year's game may prove to have two of the most evenly matched teams; they play very similar styles of football and have teams with almost identical skill sets.  -- Jayron  32  06:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a response to your aside, I would point out that Pittsburgh's roster includes a few players, including Ben Roethlisberger and Troy Polamaluas well as others, who in recent years have played in and won the Super Bowl twice, compared to Green Bay's current team. 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but as they say in the adds for mutual funds, "past performance is no guarantee of future success." Experience in prior Super Bowls aside, the comparables are still pretty close between the teams.  -- Jayron  32  17:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that if you want to watch a football game right, you kind of have to watch between plays. For one, it's really hard to know the whole story of what happened in real time. You may see that the tight end caught a pass 5 yards past the line of scrimmage and ran for another 10. But only on the replay can you see that the defense was in a zone underneath and that the linebacker got caught looking into the backfield on a play-action fake. Then before the next play, you want to know what personnel is on the field and where they're lined up. Sometimes this is hard to keep track of on TV, but on the NBC games they'll sometimes have a little box that shows "3WRs, 5DBs" so you know the offense has an extra wideout in the game and the defense has its nickel package in. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you there for the most part. I enjoy the "chess match" part of the game, and being able to watch plays develop in the space between the plays (seeing formations and matchups, pre-snap motion) and watching the replays to see what happened is a HUGE part of enjoying football.  Though skipping the commercials and halftime is kinda nice... -- Jayron  32  15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You all again. That clears a lot more up. Here in New Zealand we had TV commercials for our beloved All Blacks Rugby Union Team a few years ago which made fun of the stop start have a rest nature of Gridiron compared to the more full on nature of Union - although Rugby League fans could rightfully comment that even Union looks slow in the rucks and mauls compared to League, which likes to keep the game flowing. I guess it is to each their own, and certainly the average Football fan in North America would be expecting to make a day of it watching the Super Bowl, and do so live, not wanting the fun to be over too quickly. I understand the amusing Betty White / Abe Vigoda Snickers ad was in last year's Super Bowl halftime show. That one is a classic. In New Zealand - especially up there in Auckland, there have been for some time people dedicated to American Football, and any minority sport like that may gain in popularity here in New Zealand and over in Australia, which is fine, but they will never replace the National Australian sport of Cricket, nor the New Zealand one of Rugby Union - just as these last sports are played in North America, but to a lesser extent.

It may amuse people to know that for years we have been trying to speed up Rugby in the sense of trying to get more playing time within the eighty minutes allowed, since the clock does not stop for lineouts or goal kicks. It would be interesting to know how long the game would last if it did. For a good game of Union or League, like a good movie, we normally allow two hours, which includes the build up, play, half time and such.

I recall the excellent movie Black Sunday, starring Bruce Dern and the late Robert Shaw, about a brainwashed U.S. P.O.W. who helps Black September engineer an attack on the Super Bowl. The Network showing the game was given as CBS, Jimmy Carter was seen as the President, and I believe the game was between the Steelers and the Cowboys. Have they ever played each other in the Super Bowl ? The venue was Miami. [[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian Christopher Lilly]] 06:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Steelers and Cowboys have met each other more often (3) than any other two teams. Rematches are actually rare in the Super Bowl.  Other than the 3 times the Steelers and Cowboys met, the Bills and Cowboys played twice, as have the Dolphins and the Redskins, as have the 49ers and Bengals.  Back to the Steelers and Cowboys; two of the three times they met was during the 1970's, the actual footage from Super Bowl X was used in the film Black Sunday (1977 film).  The two teams were actually the top two teams, Super Bowl-wise, during the 1970's; 7 of the 10 Super Bowls played following the 1970-1979 seasons featured one or both of them; Other than the two meetings when they faced each other (which the Steelers won), the only one of those seven games either of them lost was Super Bowl V.  -- Jayron  32  06:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

quiet please
Why do spectators at tennis matches have to remain quiet? In other sports, the noise is a legitimate distraction, and it would appear the same amount of concentration is needed in, say, basketball when shooting from the free throw line. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In team sports, the game is played at one of the team's "home stadium", and home field advantage is expected to be part of team sports. In individual sports, a different dynamic is at play, in theory there is no "home" player, everyone should be on an equal footing.  In addition, tennis and golf developed as "gentleman's" sports, and have always been played under a sort of "genteel" atmosphere.  The level of decorum in those sports is reflective of their history, though a large part is also the individual nature of them.  -- Jayron  32  05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's so we can hear them grunting. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Googling "tennis spectator etiquette" gives a lot of pages, but explanations seem divided as to whether silence is due to gentlemanly tradition, or to avoid distracting players due to the intense concentration required - in particular to return a serve which requires very fast reactions. However other sports such as baseball and cricket require similar concentration without the same pressure for silence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Though it is worth considering that in those two sports (as in many others), the spectators are markedly further away from the players than they are in tennis, and their collective noise tends to blur into a whole: by contrast, tennis and golf spectators are much closer to the players and a single shout could be much more distracting, as also in, say, snooker. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that in my lifetime (I'm getting on these days) spectators at that other originally genteel English sport, Cricket, have changed from being gentlemen who politely applauded good strokes to raucous, drunken bogans who never shut up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, although which country/ies are you talking about? It's certainly a trend in England, probably dating from the mid-90s and the emergence of the so-called Barmy Army. The increasing prevalence of one-day fixtures is also a factor in this development. --Viennese Waltz 09:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The raucousness happens much more at one-day internationals than at test matches, though, except when the excitement gets too intense (which it does, occasionally); very rarely at county matches; and absolutely never at genteel Sunday matches on the village green. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in Australia. We've just hosted the Barmy Army, and some cricket team. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers. I can understand the concentration argument, except that in basketball, the spectators are also up close. I think the point that their noise blurs into a whole would make sense. It would be strange in tennis for the spectators to shout uniformly, so it's got to be no noise in preference to a single distracting yelp from some loony, just as a player goes to serve. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can crowd noise impact the performance of an athlete? Ask the Washington Wizards. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Around ten years ago there was a study in the Australian Football League which showed how much umpires (referees) appeared to be influenced by home crowd support. The results showed considerable impact. No idea where I would find it now, sadly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A very recent issue of Sports Illustrated had an article that covered a number of sports and concluded that apparently-subconscious bias by referees toward the home team is by far the most important factor in so-called "home field advantage". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Guitar accompaniment in this Germans song
This song has guitar accompaniment all though it. Neither chords nor arpeggios. It sounds to me like a single acoustic guitar is playing the bass as well. What do you call such accompaniment? --117.201.245.21 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The guitar sounds like it is being played fingerstyle; it sounds like a pretty straightforward fingerpicking, maybe something like "bass-strum" method, where you pick the bassline with your thumb, and strum the chords on the upbeats. Many fingerstyle techniques involve playing seperate basslines over a high-string melody as well.  It is hard to pick out the high guitar notes from the harpsichord that is also playing, as the harpsichord is in the same register as the guitar and has a very similar timbre.  -- Jayron  32  05:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Al !
I understand from Leonard Maltin's movie guide that Ed O'Neill appeared in the movie Deliverance as a sherrif's deputy, buy cannot find any reference to it here or at IMDB. The last time I watched this movie must have been over ten years ago, but I do recall seeing him in it. I know actors appear unbilled in certain films for some reason, but is this true ? [[User:Christopher1968/Chris The Russian Christopher Lilly]] 06:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe Maltin got it wrong, and O'Neill doesn't actually appear. The credits at IMDB lists the Sherrif (author James Dickey himself) and two deputies in the credits.  If Ed O'Neill was a third deputy, I can't imagine that he wouldn't have been mentioned.  It is possible that his part was either cut from the film (ala Kevin Costner in The Big Chill (film)), or that it was so fleeting (a nonspeaking part with a trivial amount of screen time) that he didn't merit a credit.  It is also possible that one of the two credited actors who are credited as Sherif's deputies just happened to look a lot like O'Neill.  1972 would have been very early in O'Neill's career; according to IMDB, his first confirmed credited role wasn't until 1980.  -- Jayron  32  07:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You. Whether indeed that is also power of suggestion, since I saw the film after I had read Maltin's comments in his 1993 edition of the Movie Guide. I did see him in the Dogs of War, albeit a fleeting part as a friend of the mercenaries who decided not to go in on the coup attempt. But this leads into the other comment I made. Why indeed to certain stars appear unbilled in some films - like Frank Whaley in Pulp Fiction? I can understand if they are up and coming, and especially if they have no speaking part, even if much famous later, like Brad Pitt appearing in No Man's Land, even though he may have been billed in it ? Certainly some actors and actresses, due to their vanity, would not only not allow themselves to appear unbilled, but demand the top billing, and these types I cannot imagine wishing to go unnoticed, and yet some others do. If I recall rightly though, George Clooney was not billed for his appearance in one of the last episodes of ER, since here I suspect he did not wish to spoil the surprise.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  03:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Want to visit London for 2012 Olympics, Help....
My husband and I are both sports lovers, we are eagerly waiting for London 2012. Specially interested in watching tennis ( isnt it scheduled to be held at Wimbledon?), gymnastics, diving, swimming and a few track and field events and maybe free style wrestling. We know we have to plan ahead to make hotel bookings and venue tickets for the Olympics. I need advice from some London based Wikipedians, who can guide us on the following.

Our total budget is pretty tight - we have put aside an equivalent of 10,000 pounds for this. So our hotel, food, venue tickets should all be sourced within this budget.

Can anyone suggest any agency which deals with Olympics 2012 and gives fans a one stop solution- like providing hotel accomodation, arranging tickets, transport to and for the venues and sight seeing etc.

If there are no such agencies, which hotel would be the best situated close to the venues to catch the above mentioned sports - not interested in football or cycling and fencing etc. We would also like to tour London and would not like to live in a shabby far flung room in the middle of nowhere.

We tried doing a google search for hotels and most hotels gave such a whopping bill for just the stay and breakfast, we seem lost. We would like to stay in a clean and upmarket place, not looking for dormitory or sharing rooms.

It might sound very rude that Im listing so many demands, but any true sports lover would understand and appreciate my questions. We are planning early to avoid last minute rush and maybe to get a better deal. And London though beautiful and inviting, can get very expensive, hence the request for inside info for Londoners. Please help. Anyone with similar thoughts and travel plans, please feel free to contribute.--Fragrantforever 07:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)


 * Be careful of "one stop shops" we've had problems in the UK with ticket agents offering tickets to concerts etc, and then going bust and not delivering. They're not all bad, but you need to check them thoroughly. On a better note, apparently each ticket will get you free travel on public transport in London on the day of the event. - X201 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you'll be able to get real tickets from a one-stop shop: I think you have to buy them through official channels. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thomas Cook are the official short break partners, you can pre-register your interest on their London 2012 site here. Nanonic (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I and my wife visit London regularly and always choose to stay in a Travelodge or Premier Inns which are a couple of chains of budget hotels that provide very modern, clean and well-equipped accommodation usually for less than £100 per room night. They both have a significant number or hotels dotted around the City. They also do breakfasts at an extra nominal cost but we like to eat at pavement cafe's. Getting around London is easy using the extensive Tube and Bus services which provide budget runaround tickets. Touring London is best done on a hop-on hop-off open-top double decker bus that does the whole tourist city. And event ticket prices and venues have been published online so you can choose what you want to do and buy in advance. I am sure your £10,000 will generously cover your expenses and that you will have a great time. Have a look at Wikitravel for better and more detailed info. about London. Good Luck. 92.30.10.99 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to all the kind replies. Nanonic, special thanks for the Thomas Cook Link, I filled in all details and pre registered immediately. I have ticked the 2-3 star as well as 4-5 star hotel options, which would give me options to choose from. And thanks too to 92.30.10.99 for the detailed and kind reply, I will do a google search on Travelodge and Premier Inns, it is indeed heartening to note your kind words, when you say my budget will generously cover my expenses. I was starting to get desperate looking at the hotel quotes I had received. Hopefully we should have a good time. Thanks again for all the replies and let me get back to my planning mode again and get the hotels and event tickets organised. Thanks again.--Fragrantforever 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the acknowledgement. I forgot to mention that Travelodge have this strange way of making really good offers. Instead of block booking the duration of your stay, their website offers you the opportunity to book individual days that make up that same total block, and so take advantage of some ridiculously cheap offers - even despite that you keep the same room throughout -but it will keep your printer busy !!!!. Their rooms have complimentary tea and coffee-making facilities and you are allowed to take carry-out food back to your room. Don't even think about car-hire - that would eat up the major part of your budget - and you wouldn't be able to park anyway. Stay away from Black Cabs and other Taxis - you will not need them and again, they will eat into your budget like Piranhas. Go to the West-end and visit Chinatown where you will eat magnificently for pennies - but check the menus first. And if the Theatres are an attraction, try buying tickets at half-price or less from the unsold-tickets booth in Leicester square. Even think about snacking from Marks and Spencer's Simply Food. Excellent Fayre at really good prices. Stay away fom Hotel and Fine-dining restaurants unless you are politicians on expense-accounts. Do a guided walking tour - very cheap but very informative and satisfying. Eat in ethnic restaurants - very competitive, friendly, vibrant and good value. Also do a river trip from Westminster Bridge to Greenwich - amazing. And when I said to use the open-topped tour bus - I should have said to buy a 2 day ticket to get your bearings - but then revert to foot or public transport, as it is not a value for money form of normal transport compared with the Tube and Bus combined ticketing system. Oh, you will find that there are about 120 languages spoken in London - seriously - English seems nowadays to be a minority language. So be prepared to ask the same questions over and over again. Shrugging in London is not an expression of impoliteness - many of them simply do not have any English. Enjoy. 92.30.53.134 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All good advice, but take the lack of English with a pinch of salt. I live within walking distance of the Olympic Park and it's very rare to find someone who can't understand a question. Most people in London are friendly and helpful in my opinion, although it will be packed with tourists. One more point about travelling in London is you need to get an Oyster Card when you arrive - it's a travel pass that gives you discounted fares on the Underground and busses and saves standing in line for tickets. Have fun! Alansplodge (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Oyster Card is a travel pass" is a bit misleading. An Oyster card can be used either as a pass or a stored-value card where you pay for individual rides separately, or both at once, so you have to decide which way you will use it.  See the article. --Anonymous, 11:02 UTC, January 28, 2011.
 * Right - I didn't explain it very well. The Wikipedia article that Anonymous has linked above does a better job. Alansplodge (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to update you all about our attempts to secure a booking with a london hotel....I have heard from more London hotels and every day gives me more shocking and preposterous quotes. We wanted to check with the best hotels ( 5 Star), the not so expensive hotels( 4 and 3 star), the budget hotels and last but not the least the travelodges as well. While Im personally disturbed by what I read on trip advisor about travelodges, I think given the exorbitant rates these hotels are quoting, we would have no other options but to go in for travelodges. To start with I enquired with one of the best hotels - Taj London - aka 51, Buckingham Gate. On their website, it says 350 pounds per night for a junior suite it sounded ok to us and we decided to ( half heartedly) raise our budget for London Olympics ( from 10,000 pounds to 15,000) and I sent them an email for a quote. We requested to stay for 18 nights from 27th July till 13th August 2012. They came back with a quote of 17,100 pounds !!!!! for 18 nights without VAT and without breakfast... WTF??? Are London hotels killing the proverbial golden goose? Who would in their right mind stay in a hotel and pay 17,100 pounds and pay extra for taxes and breakfast and lunch and dinner??? Coming to the 3 star range, I tried the Strand Palace at the Strand, they have come out with a quote of 6300 pounds sounds steep again but manageble - this includes all taxes and breakfast. We might finally go in for this. The travelodges I havent contacted them yet. Pretty distrubed after reading the reviews on tripadvisor. At times we feel tempted to ditch the whole plan and spend the money else where and stay in a 7 star luxury hotel and watch the Olympics on TV... we might actually end up staying in much more luxurious place and spend less, but yet again the lure of London and the Olympics are tempting us, feeling very angry and let down. Does anyone know any good place to stay? More expensive than Travelodges less expensive than the Strand. Around 250 pounds per night for a couple. A clean and hygienic safe place would do. Dont they have the culture of home stays, where people can pay say 3500 pounds and stay with a family for the 18 days?? Why is London soooo expensive?--Fragrantforever 11:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Obnu Bilate?
OTRS has received the following email:
 * this entry is an obvious fabrication
 * "obnubilate" - verb. def. to make less visible or unclear
 * Used by Samuel Beckett in his novel " Watt"

I've googled the term and the quoted references. The latter seem made up, but the term "Obnu Bilate" itself gives some hits, most of which are self-referencing.

Can somenone with a knowledge of martial arts please shed some light on this? Is there such a thing as Obnu Bilate, or is this an elaborate hoax? Asav (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just look at the references and 'external links': it's a clear hoax. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The creator Nat Whylch does not appear in any Books, News or Scholar articles. The google links appear mostly self-referential or irrelevent. The external link does not mention either the art or the creator. Combined with the verb which means to make unclear, the contributor who has not written anything else... I'm really thinking hoax.  Worm   10:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have tagged with and WP:prodded the article.  Worm   10:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Asav (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And nat-hwilc is Old English, roughly meaning "somebody or other". I might have tagged the thing for a G3 CSD myself; now it will have to be taken to AfD if nat-hwilc removes the prod. Deor (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, I see that the article is 2½ years old—probably not speedy material. Deor (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Note that "Speedy" refers to the process of deletion, not the time-frame or age of the article...) Arakunem Talk 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes,I know; but many admins are reluctant to speedily delete an article that's been around for a long time. They will, however, often delete an article that has been shown at AfD to be clearly a hoax, without letting the AfD run the full seven days. Deor (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dmitri Shostakovich's 2nd waltz in List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich
I couldn't find which of the compositions in this list is Shostakovich's 2nd waltz. Can anyone recognize it? 85.250.190.219 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the 7th movement in Suite for Variety Orchestra. Apparently, the waltz had been adapted from Op. 99: Music to the film The First Echelon (listen here) ---Sluzzelin talk  13:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

House MD
What's the best House episode according to http://www.politedissent.com from a purely medical standpoint? Is there an episode's medicine that earns an A or an A+? --Belchman (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to look through each and every House review on this excellent website, so I tried googling site:politedissent.com house "a+" but the results are rather polluted with all the commenters adding their "A+" opinions to the bottom of each review. I didn't see any A+ medical-content grades.  You're probably going to have to slog through them all manually.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Damn. Thanks anyway. --Belchman (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)