Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 June 16

= June 16 =

Cast awards noted on actor's article
I'm wondering what the protocol is for awards for 'Best Cast'. Can they be listed on individual actors' pages as counting as their achievement? Thanks Span (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I'd just mention it on the show, play, film or whatever they were the best cast of. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you know of a guideline somewhere that points to this, for future ref? Thanks Span (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'd like to point out that, as far as I can recall, I've never seen it in any actor's bio. It would feel a bit needy if I did come across one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An IP was trying to sneak some into Gary Oldman's biog. Span (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Central Ohio Film Critics Association Award for Best Cast? Good gravy, seriously? I've deleted that and some others that are equally mind bogglingly obscure. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

They reappear with alarming alacrity. Cheers for keeping an eye out. Span (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect it was Gary FreeMorpheme (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Extra innings
What is the record for the most combined runs scored in extra innings? Could you also possibly provide a box score for the game? 71.146.10.213 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Which sport? "Innings" could apply to at least cricket and baseball.  Baseball refers to the singular as "an inning", but in cricket it's "an innings", so on face value your question is more likely to be about cricket than baseball.  But my gut says it's the opposite.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you have an extra innings in cricket? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I would say entirely the opposite: the OP's post uses innings as the plural of singular innings - "the most combined runs scored in extra innings" - and asks about a Box score, which seems to be a baseball concept unknown in cricket.
 * This doesn't mean I know the answer, though. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My misread. I thought it said "an extra innings".  Notch that up as Error No. 1 for 2012.  But my gut was still right about baseball.  :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Baseball, certainly. I don't think cricket has "extra" innings. It's either 1 or 2 innings depending on the type of match. I googled [most runs scored in extra innings] and this item came up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Answering the original question, the record for most combined runs in extra innings is 12. It happened twice, with the Oakland Athletics coming out on the losing end both times. On June 21, 1969, the Minnesota Twins scored 11 runs in the top of the 10th, and the Athletics responded with one run in the bottom of the inning, making the final score 14-4 for the Twins. (box) And on July 3, 1983, the Texas Rangers scored 12 runs on their own in the top of the 15th inning to defeat the Oakland Athletics 16-4. (box) (There were 11 runs scored in extra innings nine times.)  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 08:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Sorry about the confusion there. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012
Why do pairs of matches in the third set in the group stage of UEFA Euro 2012, each pair has simultaneous matches? For example, why Poland vs Czech Republic and Russia vs Greece occurred simultaneously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.24.124.142 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because FIFA organized the matches in such a manner? 71.146.10.213 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * UEFA organizes the matches, not FIFA, and they do it in such a manner because of what PrimeHunter is referencing below. 109.97.170.196 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of West Germany 1–0 Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup). The UEFA switch can be seen by comparing UEFA Euro 1980 and UEFA Euro 1984. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this arrangement stops such a thing from happening again. The players could simply be kept informed from the touchline as to the score in the other match, and play accordingly. --Viennese Waltz 05:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They usually are informed, but the situation could rapidly change in the other match, and so you can't really lay back and enjoy passing the ball around like the Germans and Austrians did. One goal in the 85th minute in the other game can knock you out of the competition. 92.80.39.255 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK but I still don't understand why the Germans and Austrians did what they did. If either side had won such that Algeria went through, that would have been advantageous for them in terms of their progress through the competition, since Algeria are a weaker side.  In other words, it was in their own best interests for Algeria to go through.  And having lived in Austria for several years I can confirm that there is no love lost between the Germans and the Austrians, so loyalty would not have been a factor. --Viennese Waltz 16:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would Algeria have played whichever team got through in the next round? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The next stage was 1982 FIFA World Cup with 3-team groups where they couldn't have played Algeria. The earliest they could have met was the semifinals. Being certain to advance from the first group stage was far more important than speculation about the possibility of an easy opponent in a semifinal – and Algeria seemed unlikely to get there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Music copyright jargon?
I've been doing a bit of research for a new article (the song "Caribbean Clipper" by Glenn Miller) and came across this web page. Could anyone explain what this information actually means? It seems like a lot of copyright jargon... thanks! matt (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to 17 USC sec. 304:
 * "(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of fifty-six years from the date copyright was originally secured, or beginning on January 1, 1978, whichever is later." :: Since the song was registered in 1942, 56 years later would be 1998. It looks like the copyright was terminated on August 7, 1998. (I'm not sure what "termination" means but at least you have a date of termination).
 * "(4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title" :: '''It looks like such a letter was sent on March 15, 1995.

'''
 * Someone with more legal knowledge could explain this in further depth. Good luck! CaseyPenk (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dancing in the Dark, different versions
Am trying to track down a version of "Dancing in the Dark" featured on the radio when the song first came out. I heard it many times on B-96 in Chicago. It featured two females back-up singers behind Springsteen and tinkling bells that were added for color. Cannot find this version today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rms12 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article on Dancing in the Dark tells us that it was remixed by Arthur Baker and released in 1984 at much the same time as the single. Is it not this remix? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC) In fact there are 4 remixes listed, maybe one of these? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Single vs. song?
Hey there, so I'm looking at The First Album 1:59PM, an album by Korean pop group 2PM, and I noticed it has three singles. The first song, "10 Out of 10," is on Hottest Time of the Day, a single. The second song, "Again & Again," is on 2:00PM Time for Change, another single. The third song, "Heartbeat," is presumably on Heartbeat, another single, although I think the Heartbeat single was just the one song.

I'm massively confused about the naming conventions, though. Hottest Time of the Day and 2:00PM Time for Change have six and eight tracks respectively. At least for American singles, the songs on the single would be variations on the same song. For example, singles for Hello (Martin Solveig song) are all remixes or edits of the same song. Whereas 2PM singles contain an A-side and a B-side and the name of the single doesn't match the name of the lead single (or lead song?) For some reason, The First Album 1:59PM refers to the singles using pipelinks - the link text says "10 Out of 10" but the link points to Hottest Time of the Day. This seems inaccurate and misleading, because the song "10 Out of 10" is not a single. It's part of a single, right?

I'd like to know how to refer to these different.. things. For example, is Heartbeat (single) the same as Heartbeat (song)? Which one should I use? Also, is "Again & Again" a lead single, or a single, or a song? Thanks in advance for your help. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How times have changed! Before remixes were a thing, all singles were A-side and B-side, meaning a featured song and another less important tune (though sometimes they became hits in their own right).  In some cases, both sides were featured, such as the Beatles' Day Tripper and We Can Work It Out.  Because the capacity of compact discs is much higher than a vinyl record-style single, there is more space.  Why not add more tracks?  It's a good place to throw material that isn't really intended to be featured on an album, or for alternate versions. Mingmingla (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Lovely answer. Thank you. Indeed 2PM is profligate with their songs - they've been around for three years but have a handful of mini-albums / EPs, two studio albums, and another handful of album-length singles. All the better for their fans! CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A similar question came up a few weeks ago over the definition of a "single". There are some answers that are very germane to this discussion.  See this.  -- Jayron  32  01:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Profligate" means "utterly and shamelessly immoral; throughly dissolute; recklessly prodigal or extravagant". Is that how you want to characterise 2PM, Casey?  Maybe you meant "prolific"?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)