Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 February 21

= February 21 =

Scrabble / Words With Friends
I've been roped into playing Words With Friends with a few people and have some questions. I don't normally play Scrabble, so I'm unfamiliar with exactly what constitutes a legal word. A few times I've tried to play 'jew' and 'nazi' only to find that it won't accept them. Too bad too since the J and Z are worth so much. Now I've just found that I can't play 'dijon' either. Why are these words not allowed? (I'm going on the assumption that WWF uses the same basic set of rules as Scrabble.) Dismas |(talk) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In Scrabble, you can't use proper names, which require capital letters, so that's why Jew and Nazi are dissallowed. Same for Dijon, which is either the name of a city or a brand name.  RudolfRed (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think Dijon mustard is a brand name, but it is a type of mustard named after a place, which makes it capitalized (although other things named after a place aren't capitalized, like champagne, bologna, and cologne). The Scrabble rule can be simplified as "you can't play any capitalized words unless there is also a non-capitalized version".  So "god" is OK, meaning any of them, even though "God" is not, meaning the old man with the beard trying to zap Adam's fingertip after rubbing his feet on the carpet. :-)


 * I'm surprised "nazi" isn't allowed, in the "soup nazi" sense. There's also a non-capitalized version of "jew", meaning to haggle somebody down on a price, but that probably isn't allowed because it's offensive slang. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed -- see Official Scrabble Players Dictionary. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I also have to wonder if WWF has a PC filter that blocks potentially objectionable words. However, a friend recently played "twat" without a problem (he even apologized for fear of offending me by playing it). -- McDoob  AU  93  03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've used words like 'whore' before.  Dismas |(talk) 04:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The greatest game of Words ever featured my wife playing the word "jism" over my previous word, "shit", for 69 points. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Different games use different dictionaries. You need to find out which dictionary WWF uses.  Also, I would expect there to be a list of rules somewhere.  RudolfRed (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently it uses the Enhanced North American Benchmark Lexicon. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See the very bottom section of the rulebook here. Basically they took a freely available medium-sized wordlist and tweaked it a little. LukeSurlt c 23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've updated Words With Friends with this, and other, info. LukeSurlt c 00:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

FIFA and separating football and politics
From what I've read, FIFA rules require that national football associations be independent of the country's government. I can see this being a possibility in countries where there is such a concept as "independence from government" for a private enterprise. But how is this enforced (or even attempted!) in countries where state-control is all-pervasive? I can't imagine that the DPR Korea Football Association, to use an extreme example, enjoys the slightest genuine independence in its' decision-making. Woe to the DPR Korea FA president who defies the will of the "Dear Leader" in making appointments or team selections! The same would apply to many other countries, including Iran (the Iranian FA is allegedly connected to the pro-ahmedinajad faction), China, Myanmar, etc, etc. How does FIFA attempt to police the "independence from government" rule in these countries? Or is the rule just a smokescreen, selectively applied only to non-totalitarian countries? (I'll be cautious in making presumptions, given that FIFA is considered more powerful than the UN by some). 58.111.178.170 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule is obviously harder to apply in a totalitarian society, but the idea is that the structure of the national football association should be independent from the government. For example, it cannot report to the Minister of Sports or another similar official. Of course even if it is independent on paper, there can still be interference from the governement in the association's affairs. In cases where such interference becomes public, FIFA has on a number of occasions decreed sanctions against the national team. Here are a couple of articles on recent cases of such sanctions: and . --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Deveraux's tattoo
Sydney Deveraux has a tattoo just below her left breast, a cursive script writing that says something like "You are the [...]". What does the rest of the tattoo say? J I P &#124; Talk 18:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall we start with 'Just who is Sydney Deveraux'? I'm probably showing that I'm more out-of-touch than a High Court judge, but I've never heard of her. Google doesn't seem to, either. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appear to have misspelled her first name, it's apparently spelled "Sydni". You can find a brief description about her here. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that helps! I found a large picture here, and I reckon it says 'I am the bitter, I am the sweet' (or possibly 'You are the bitter, I am the sweet'). See Bittersweet - pleasure and pain. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I had a picture of her that also showed the tattoo, but the last part was in the shadow, so it was too hard to read. I can now confirm it says "You are the bitter, I am the sweet". It appears Wikipedia is a good way to find answers to even the strangest questions quite fast. =) J I P  &#124; Talk 20:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's not often I get a legitimate excuse for looking at enlarged pictures of ladies' funbags on the internet... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike: you count a refdesk question as a legitimate excuse? Would you like us to invent questions that you can only answer by browsing through lots of such pictures? &#x2013; b_jonas 10:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need an excuse to get your rocks off on the internet, Mike? I pity you.  Speaking of such matters, what's that cucumber all about? Is it so that people can ask "Is that a cucumber you've got in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?"  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a deal to me, b_j! Whilst I'm vaguely aware of the range of opportunities for viewing lady parts online, it's nice to be able to tell myself "I'm only looking at this for research". And Jack, it would have been entirely childish, puerile and immature of me to select a username merely in order to set up the punchline to a knob gag, wouldn't it? So yes, that was the reason. Thanks for indulging me. I'll set 'em up, you nod 'em in. Fnar fnar. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably all this research helps to keep your username in firm condition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, so that's why you use your cucumber as your handle. I was thinking you were a Veggie Tales fan:, but it turns out you're more into veggie tails.StuRat (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)