Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 October 30

= October 30 =

Is there a faith-based film that also has a Halloween theme?
Hi, Christian Challenge hosts a faith-based film for our ministry group every Wednesday night, and we need to find a film that gives a Christian message, but with a Halloween theme, as tomorrow is the day before Halloween. I'm having trouble finding what I'm looking for. Do you have any ideas / suggestions? Thanks. --199.0.195.236 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never quite understood the moral of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, but it may be a story of faith. It's not something I'd suggest though if you are not already familiar with it. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Veggie Tales Halloween double-feature: . StuRat (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything of Veggie Tales is certainly going to be religion-centered. The Great Pumpkin is basically a satire of religious faith, so although it's funny and entertaining, I don't recommend it for the "faith-based", as someone might suddenly get the point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And that would be a crying shame ;) Manytexts (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tad confused. Is Christian Challenge a faith based group...or an editor on Wikipedia.......or both?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you Google "Christian challenge", it appears to be an organization, or maybe multiple organizations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of order: The Great Pumpkin is a satire of Santa Claus. Schluz was overtly Christian in A Charlie Brown Christmas, he wasn't satirizing religion in The Great Pumpkin, he was satirizing the Santa Claus/Greed/Comercialization thing.  -- Jayron  32  12:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. And Linus himself is the most religious of the Peanuts kids. Though the Great Pumpkin still raises the question of a non-conventional belief system. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, I can't recommend Great Pumpkin sight unseen, but I don't think it is at all a satire of religion. It's amazingly challenging for a cartoon. Certainly a provocative subject for an adult audience. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Charles Schultz didn't necessarily intend for Peanuts to be child-oriented. He got into adult-level themes a great deal, to the point where it was included on the cover of a Time issue tagged "Comment in the Comics". I think he saw his characters as adults disguised as children. He supposedly hated the title Peanuts which was imposed on it by the comic strip syndicate. He preferred the title "Little Folks". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if there are really "Christian message" films tailor made for Halloween. A favorite of mine that has some very strong morality tales (thou shall not covet in the greed sense not the adultery sense, pride, gluttony, and the need for strength verses perceived 'evil' etc.) is the Disney Sleepy Hollow version.  Youtube has it even, tho the film is less than an hour, it is very G rated and to me at least illustrates the best parts of what makes Halloween unique, spooky, the fall season coming, and you can never go wrong with the combination of Washington Irving and Bing Crosby.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   03:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Scratching my head on this, I also remember a very excellent (and kind of spooky) film of Flatliners with some very heavy morality tales in it that would work for many Christian beliefs. I wouldn't recommend it for anything younger than teens or if there are families there with young children etc.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It maybe important to keep in mind that a number of Christian sects regard Halloween as a pagan holiday or even a devil-worshiping holiday, so by definition in such a case, a faith-based presentation on Halloween would have to be opposed to Halloween. Presumably the creators of Veggie Tales don't take that viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Bugs suggests, you should perhaps be looking for something dealing with the Christian All Hallows' Eve[ning] (hence "Halloween") and the following All Saints Day, rather than the coincidental/usurped themes of Samhain to which I shall be devoting myself. {The Poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about The Nightmare Before Christmas? It's good entertainment anyway.--Shantavira|feed me 14:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not for a church group. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a great movie, and it's rated PG. Don't listen to Bugs about this. Shadowjams (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I always thought Christian churches considered Halloween to be "of the devil", so I'm surprised to see a request for a "Halloween movie with a Christian message". Have mainstream Christian churches moved away from this position? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? Catholicism certainly doesn't preach against Halloween, and neither do any major established Protestant sects.  It certainly doesn't involve the osculum infame.  Your view of Christianity seems overly influenced by True Blood. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen gospel tracts preaching against the holiday, and years ago, I remember a co-worker lamenting how millions of parents indoctrinate their children to "Satan worship" by dressing them up on Halloween. I guess his church had more extreme views on the subject than most. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't most theology-based Halloween movies convey a religious message? You wouldn't say that Saving Private Ryan conveys a pro war message would you? How about The Exorcist? Shadowjams (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the more extreme Christians do indeed claim that doing anything with Halloween consistutes devil worship. (Maybe this is all moot now, it being All Saints Day by now.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Rough patches on hands
I weight lift a bit with metal dumbbells. I have rough patches on my palms at the start of each finger now and have seen these on other people too (possibly compulsive masturbators (no offence meant, i suppose it's a hobby)). Anyone know if these marks are avoidable with better gloves? I have gel gloves, but they don't appear to prevent it completely. I know this is a health question, but i'm asking on the basis that it is hardly life threatening, inconvenient, or something i could sue over (Not that i would try). It's a safe bet there's a few wikipedians who know about this also, since it's fairly common. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These sound like Callus to me and are nothing to worry about. I've been lifting with bare hands for about 30 years now and mine haven't gotten any bigger.  I think most people who lift wear gloves to minimise the impact of calluses but you can never prevent them completely.  Look upon them as a badge of honor! --TrogWoolley (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much TrogWoolley! If you have misdiagnosed me i will see you in court =P (That's a joke). Thanks again and have a nice afternoon ツ Jenova   20  (email) 15:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a similar problem with my lawnmower. It has a "dead man's switch" in the form of a bar that needs to be held against the handle to keep it running.  Unfortunately, that bar kept pinching my hand in the same spot you mentioned.  I found snowmobile gloves or thick leather gloves work best to prevent this.  I look mighty odd wearing snowmobile gloves in August, though. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * During the French Revolution and the English Civil War, aristocrats sometimes used to disguise themselves as ordinary working folk to avoid arrest. One look at the palms of their hands was enough to tell if they were honest workers or the pampered rich, simply by the callouses or the lack thereof. Perhaps they might have got away with it if they had been pumping iron ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I bet the axeman was both callused and callous. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't you keep it in place with an adjustable wrench or some string StuRat? Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 11:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that would make it dangerous. I don't object to the concept of a dead man's switch, just to their particular implementation of it.  The concept seems like a really good idea, to me.  There are times when safety devices do seem to go overboard, though.  One example is my top-load washing machine which refused to run with the top up.  I quickly defeated that safety feature, as I don't do laundry while wearing a tie that could catch on the agitator. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please help resolve a dispute about a rule in American Football
A little help here would be appreciated, especially if someone can site the relevant NFL rule, but just general info is welcomed as well. Here's the scenario. Upon a kick off (but not a punt) the kicking team kicks the ball to the receiving team. The ball lands in the end zone, and then bounces back in to the field of play, say to the one yard line, and comes to a stop. No one from either team has touched the ball at this point. What is the potential now for this ball at the one yard line? Is it down? If not, what can either side potentially do upon recovery of the ball? Ditch &#8733; 18:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check the rule book in a second to cite chapter and verse, but AFAIK, on kickoffs, all balls are live so long as a) they go over ten yards and b) they have not gone out-of-bounds. On kickoffs, the ball does not become dead unless it goes out-of-bounds or a player takes posession of it and is properly downed.  So in your scenario, the ball is live until a player from either team picks it up.  -- Jayron  32  18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge a kickoff is considered a live ball until it is covered by one team or the other - with the exception of a ball that has gone less then 10 yards forward - see the onside kick rules. Thus, in your scenario if the kicking team covers the ball it is first and goal for their offense. If the receiving team covers the ball it is first and 10 at the one yard line for their offense. If this is incorrect I am sure that other editors will correct this. MarnetteD | Talk 18:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a little side question... if their offense recovered the ball, would it be first & goal, or can the offense move the ball forward for a touchdown? Astronaut (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have added that I confined my answer to one player falling on the ball and getting touched by the opposite team so that the ball would be downed. Either team could also pick it up and advance it and there are all sorts of things that could happen including the kicking team scoring a touchdown. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * From the NFL rule book,, Rule 7, Section 2 "Dead ball": a ball is dead


 * (i) when a loose ball comes to rest anywhere in the field of play, and no player attempts to recover it; the official covering the play should pause momentarily before signaling that the ball is dead. Any legal (or illegal) kick is awarded to the receivers, and any other ball is awarded to the team last in possession. When awarded to a team behind a goal line, the ball is placed on the one-yard line.
 * So the answer is that the ball is dead and belongs to the receiving team. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The operative word in that rule is "and no player attempts to recover it". It would be very bizarre that both teams would let a ball bounce around unattended on a kick-off, as special teams players all know that both teams can recover the ball on such play. Here,s the rule from nfl.com: "A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball." . The fact that the ball bounced in the end zone and back on the field does not change anything: the receiving team can down the ball at the one-yard line, or attempt to advance it, or the kicking team can recover the ball at the one-yard line but not advance it. If indeed the unthinkable scenario occurs in which no one attempts anything at this point and the ball just sits there until the referee blows the whistle, then the section of the rule book quoted by Duoduoduo comes into play, and his interpretation is correct. --Xuxl (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is that part about the one-yard line? I thought a ball that went into the end zone was placed at the 20 yard line?  RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of a touchback, where a kick bounces or flies through the end zone untouched. That's a fairly common occurrence. A fourth-down punt likewise is a touchback if it lands in the end zone untouched. That's because the kicking team on a fourth-down punt cannot recover the ball unless the receiving touches it first. If it settles within the goal lines untouched, or is downed by the kicking team, the officials spot it wherever it was downed. But a kickoff is different. It's a "free kick" - it's anybody's ball, and as long as it remains within the 120 yards of the field (including end zones), it's a "live" ball. If no one touches such a ball (like if all 22 players suddenly pass out from the heat), then the officials follow the rules book in spotting it. If the receiving team downs it in the end zone, it's a touchback and it comes out to the twenty. If the kicking team downs it in the end one, it's a touchdown and they get 6 points. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

key change
Hello, how can I change this song's key into D minor and put in Youtube ? 198.105.111.86 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The song is: "Raymond - no rain and no moon (TV series "The Purple Hairpin Romance" theme song Cantonese Version) Composer: Tang Chi Wai Words: Lindsay" Video removed as copyright violation. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Unfortunately we cannot assist you in uploading this to Youtube.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How to upload a song in Youtube ? 198.105.111.86 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That question alone is best answered at the computer reference desk.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This song (no rain and no moon) is in E-flat minor. I think E-flat minor is sadder than D minor. The E-flat minor can make someone cry. 198.105.111.86 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * E-flat minor makes me feel like killing myself. OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.  But what do you mean by changing the song's key?  Wouldn't that mean transposing it, playing it yourself and recording that performance, then uploading the video?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the copyright questions, Audacity is a free sound recording program that can change the key of an audio track without changing the tempo. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I've heard there's this thing called "modern technology". I must read all about it when I download the internet and print it out for my weekend reading.  Shouldn't be more than a few dozen pages, surely.  No, on second thought, I'd better put 100 pages in the feeder to be on the safe side.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  14:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend using a small font. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With no spacing inbetween...--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)