Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 June 26

= June 26 =

In cricket, is there a specific term for a delivery that results in no runs?
It's not a single, just one fewer than it. Does it have a name? More specifically, is there a term for a delivery that results in no runs and no dismissal? It seems to me (though I'm just learning about the game) to be the most common result of a delivery. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * dot ball. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You may find Glossary of cricket terms useful. --Michig (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely that. A "dot ball" because a cricket scorer will note the delivery of the bowler as a dot, denoting no runs scored or conceded.  There are subtleties because a delivery can result in no "runs" when it perhaps results in "extras" such as Wide (cricket) or No ball, where technically it's not runs, but extras.  We could spend a month on this, but happy to explain if necessary!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! I did look at the glossary, but I admit I didn't feel like combing through all those terms, and in-page searches didn't give me that result. I do intend to read the entire glossary, but I'm taking things one step at a time.
 * I do have a couple more questions. One... am I right that a dot ball is the most common outcome in general? And two... I've read from several sources that the phrase "bowled over", which is used even in my native US, comes from cricket, but no source has said exactly what the term means in cricket! (Or what it used to mean; maybe it's archaic.) Does it have anything to do with an over, or does it perhaps mean the same thing as bowled out?± Lenoxus (" *** ") 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think "bowled over" is from skittles (the original version of 10-pin bowling). There, "over" is an adverb.  "Bowled an over" is a cricketing term, as is "bowled out".  In cricket, "over" is a noun.--   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking from experience of watching a lot of cricket and from being a scorer for a few years, I would say dot-balls are the commonest outcome. It is fairly common for a whole over (i.e. a set of 6 deliveries by the same bowler) to consist of dot-balls, in which case it is called a maiden over.  A commentator might say something like "Devon Malcolm's figures are 12 overs, 2 maidens, 3 for 41", signifying that he bowled 12 overs, two of which consisted entirely of dot-balls (*), took 3 wickets and conceded 41 runs.  (*) This is not strictly true; he could have taken one or more wickets in one of those maiden overs, in which case it would be called a "wicket maiden", "double-wicket maiden" etc.  There is such a lot of terminology!   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  11:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to this, this is how a scorer would record three types of over in his/her scorebook: #1 is a maiden over, #2 has 2 runs, 3 dot-balls and a wicket, and #3 is a wicket maiden:  Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  11:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That probably depends on which form of the game is being played. I'd imagine you are absolutely right if we're thinking of test cricket, but the limited overs game is much more free-scoring. In 20/20 in particular, I'd hazard a guess that singles are the most common outcome, followed by dot balls, then 2s, 4s, 6s and 3s. I have no idea how to test this, but I know the records are out there - maybe someone could come up with a Stasguru query that gives the answer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, that's a good point: I was thinking solely of Test/five-day cricket (that's all I watch: suppose I'm a bit old-fashioned! LOL).  Limited overs cricket in general is likely to have a much lower proportion of dot-balls.   Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  12:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all! ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What piece did Hermann Göring play?
I hope this post won't be construed as a homework assignment :-) It is not.

I read history books. One of them just recently was a book on World War II. I do have many and cannot recall what it was. An episode is described there whereas two prominent German lawyers upset over Germany's declining fortunes in 1944 decided to approach Hermann Göring and ask him to influence Hitler to make peace with the Western Allies. They met at Carin Hall, had a dinner after which (or perhaps before) Göring played a composition. He was a very talented man, played violin and the piano. In the end he refused to mediate because his influence was in decline at that time and he rarely saw the Führer.

I've become obsessed recently with finding out what composition Göring played. It is mentioned in the book but I cannot find it.

I am wondering if anybody has this information.

Many thanks, - Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.14.15 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making me aware of Carinhall. Do you know the names of the lawyers, perchance?  It might make a search more successful than has proven to be the case for me thus far.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the post. I do not remember the names of the lawyers. When I read the book my interests were elsewhere. Just a month ago I decided to learn to play the piano and so far have been making progress. It is fascinating. Then my mind wandered to the book or rather the episode it describes. I do remember that the name of the composer was unknown to me, so it was not Mozart or Beethoven or any other well known figure. I vaguely remember that the (last) name was long and it began with a G. However if you offer me a list of composers' names that begin with a G I won't recognize it. It just strikes me that a man like him must have selected a beautiful piece for the occasion. This is why I want to find it out.

Thank you, - Alex174.52.14.15 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Canada's Walk of Fame and Ryan Reynolds
He was inducted in 2011, but due to scheduling issues he was unable to attend the ceremony and was due to be "walked" at a later date. My question is, when will that date be?, and, I called the CWOF and they told me that it's useless to nominate Reynolds since he's already on the Walk of Fame, but at the same time he is not. Can anybody clarify me this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelebrity One (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you already spoke to the one party in a position to do anything about it, I doubt any of the rest of us could offer further help, unless one of our editors is secretly Ryan Reynolds. Mingmingla (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)