Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 December 19

= December 19 =

Newspaper
Does anyone know any info on this? I have been trying to find any info in what year people started gift wrapping with newspaper and have not had any luck was wondering if you could help I thought I had read in an article it was during great depression because money was so tight but cant seem to find the article or anything helping me figure out when that came about. Would really appreciate any help you could offer. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.28.188 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I could find here and here it was the opposite. During the Great Depression people wanted their gift to look nicer as they couldn't afford expensive gifts. Although one reference I found from 1944 had this: "Gift packaging at Neiman-Marcus of Dallas, Tex., is a ritual. War or peace, booms or depressions, it continues as a definite part of store operations. When the material shortage threatened at the beginning of the war, J. B. Aiello, superintendent superintendent, said, "We'll gift package, even if we have to use newspapers," and his boast was made good by the creation of a colored newspaper package wrapped by Beverly Morgan, Neiman-Marcus' imaginative gift-wrap designer."
 * I hope that helps Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians who died in 2014
Another user started deleting pending cases on the list. Is this necessary? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any article which does not have enough source material outside of Wikipedia is subject for deletion. It's not complicated, unless the deleted articles are somehow your pet project, and then you'll somehow come up with some other justification for why they shouldn't be deleted.  If you want to stop something from being deleted, come up with reliable source text to support it as an article.  -- Jayron 32 03:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Highest Bejeweled 2 score ever?
Could this be the highest score ever achieved in the ACTION game in Bejeweled 2 Deluxe (my highest score in the ACTION game), 2,164,600? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * nope Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah - not even close. The world record is 2.1 BILLION points...so you're about 0.1% of the way there! SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth pointing out that the scoring in this (and many similar games) is highly nonlinear. Last year I broke my personal record on a shmup by a factor of 100, by only lasting about 30 seconds longer and killing a few more enemies than in the previous record. Combo_(video_gaming) and "chains" can mean the difference between scoring 100 points and 100k points in a puzzle game. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is the world record for TRADITIONAL in super collapse 2? Anyone know? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very suspicious of any high score near 2.1 Billion. 2,147,483,647 is MAXINT for 32bit software, so a high score in that vicinity usually indicates that the high score list is insecure, and that people are somehow submitting false scores.75.69.10.209 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The video (which I watched without sound) says he "maxed out the game" and the highest score they showed was less than 0.004% shy of 231, so I think he played until the score rolled over. -- BenRG (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But what's the highest score achieved by a centenarian? —Tamfang (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Are news network interviews pre-scripted?
When a news network, such as CNN for example, brings on air a specialist to discuss a particular subject (Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondant for example), are these guests given the questions that will be asked ahead of time so that they have time to prepare a well-thought out answer? Similarly, on late-night comedy shows such as Colbert Report, Jimmy Fallon, or Jon Stewart, are their guests given the questions and prepare answers ahead of time? Acceptable (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The interviewee needs to be informed about the subject that they are being asked to give their views upon but that’s about it.  Knowing the questions beforehand temps  the interviewee to memorise answers which lead to a boring, non-spontaneous, speech like response. Also, a good interviewer will only have a few brief  bits on the on the subject written down as a aid memoir of the most important bits he wants answers to,  together with the expert's possible responses, so that interviewer  can come back instantly with a counter argument (cross-examine).  However, much of how the interview goes though, is based on the response given by the interviewee. On chat-shows things are  'slightly' different. Very often the guest(s) appear for the sole purpose of promoting their latest film, book, tour, or whatever (you are watching an advertorial in case you hadn't realized).  The guests may demand ahead of time, that certain topics of a personal nature are not mentioned, if  talk  of them  would subtract from their public persona or image  that they wish to project. Likewise the  interviewer needs to weave into the conversation what the guest is there to promote. The structure of the interview is bound by tight time constraints. So the producer can keep the  chat-show host aware of  the right point in which to bring into the conversation the promotional stuff (through the earpiece). As this has got to go well and smoothly, a little pre-collusion sometimes helps but  this is up to the personal style of the chat-show host. A good host can find himself  introducing at short notice, someone substituted in-place of a guest that could not make the show, yet be able to draw out an interesting conversation about what the guest has been getting up to (in a professional sense). Hence, the substitute guest's eagerness to appear on the show, at short notice and unprepared. --Aspro (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was of course this infamous case of an interviewee who clearly wasn't prepared at all, although also wasn't particularly eager to appear on the show and wasn't brought in because the other Guy wasn't available. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So on news networks, guests such as spokespeople for US State Dept. are making up those coherent, eloquent responses more or less on the spot? Acceptable (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This probably qualifies as original research, but I have a (small) amount of experience in this area, having been interviewed for TV and radio a handful of times. In my experience, the interviews were preceded (by as much as a day or as little as an hour) by an unrecorded conversation with either the reporter or a producer. The purpose of that was to let me know the sort of things they would ask about, and let them know the sort of things I would say. The actual interview wasn't a replay of that, and was always a lot shorter, but I went into it with a better sense of what to expect and how to respond.
 * As to coherent and eloquent spokespersons, that is their number one job: to appear polished and knowledgeable at the drop of a hat, even (especially?) when they are not. It's a skill that some people have. Talking points also help a lot. - EronTalk 22:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that for the first incarnation of the Hollywood Squares they pretty much said up front that some of the lines used by the panelists were written in advance. In some cases, for the newer comedy-news shows, there might well be some sort of pre-broadcast discussion with the guest regarding a few jokes they could use. That probably doesn't qualify as "scripting" strictly defined, because the guest is almost always going to say what they want anyway, but it comes close enough I think to probably be described as such. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They actually said it in the closing credits, that "actual questions may have been" seen by the folks in the squares. That doesn't mean they all were. But much of the point of the show was to get the folks to say funny things, which is easier to do if you know what's coming. Maybe the most insidious thing was that they were allowed to "bluff", meaning to give what sounded like a confident (but incorrect) answer. To his credit, Paul Lynde didn't bluff. He always made a funny first, and then either answered as best he could, or admitted he didn't know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect this would depend a fair amount on what sort of subject and interview we're referring to. If someone is being asked to go for a relatively friendly indepth interview weeks away, they're likely to be given more info on what's going to be asked than someone who's been asked to be interviewed about some fairly recent news with perhaps hours or preparation at most. Of course in the later case, the person is also chosen for their hopeful expertise in the subject matter (i.e. they probably already have some idea about most questions that will be asked). In the case of someone actually labelled as a correspondent, that may mean they are actually employed so could be at the studio and working with the editorial team (although I think correspondents can also be freelancers, particularly those working in foreign countries). Famous entertainment performers of various types many generally demand more preparation (or at least to be able to specify some questions which are no go areas), than politicians. The creator of Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis has specifically said there's no real prep, although you've gotta figure there was probably some for the Obama one given the way it went. And you've gotta figure there was limited prep for this one or it at least went majorly offscript although that was likely intentional. Nil Einne (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If they were scripted or even informed of the subject matter beforehand, then Sarah Palin would look even more like a stupid comedy act than many people already think she is.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  17:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The last episode just aired the other night but Craig Ferguson was known to tear up the notes that he was given as to what to ask the guests on The Late Late Show. Every time a guest came and sat down, he'd take the blue note card, tear it up, and throw the pieces over his shoulder.  Guests would sometimes comment about the pre-interview being wasted or not being done at all.  Guests that were not on the show very often or were new to the show would sometimes visibly get a little nervous about the notes being torn up and completely disregarded.  And more well known guests would sometimes mention the fact that their publicists insisted that they bring up the subject of the guest's new film/book/tv show/etc.  So they'd throw in a couple comments about it and then get back to whatever they and Ferguson wanted to talk about.  Dismas |(talk) 05:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. So to be clear, it wasn't just the last Late, Late Show but the  last Craig Ferguso late late show that he will host.--Aspro (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Shortest time to Execution in the United States?
In thinking about one of the Criminal Minds Episodes, I was wondering within recent time (last 40 years?) has anyone been executed in the Untied States either a) within 6 months of the death penalty being imposed by a judge or b) within a year of the crime taking place? If not, does anyone have minimal number for either?Naraht (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to this the record for Texas is 8 months & 18 days, executed in 1996. Not sure if that is U.S. wide record as well. -- Jayron 32 21:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Timothy McVeigh was executed 4 years and 9 days after his June 2, 1997 conviction. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By comparison, the now-exonerated George Stinney was executed in June 1944 for a crime committed in March of the same year. The trial took all of two and a half hours. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention that, but I think the OP's question is limited to after the Supreme Court reversed itself in 1976. If we talk about before then we're going to get people who were tried and hanged on the same day. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Y'know, you don't have to respond to everything, especially if you're not adding new useful information. "By comparison" should have indicated to any capable reader that I understood the question and was comparing the many years it takes nowadays to the horribly short time it took for Stinney. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you take my comment as personal? I did think I was pointing out something useful, that the Supreme Court reversed its stand on the death penalty in 1976; and while the Stinney case was egregious (and I championed the reversal being posted at ITN, and thought about doing what you did, mentioning it), it was famous for being the youngest execution in the 20th century, not the quickest in US history. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051622/Alabama-executes-man-just-years-death-row-requested-capital-punishment-killing-baby-son.html Christopher Thomas Johnson and Timothy McVeigh are tied for shortest in recent memory with approximately 6 years between crime and execution. Johnson pled guilty to Capital murder and requested the death penalty and McVeigh confessed. Yeah I know there is a *lot* in Criminal Minds which is fiction, but going from the crime being committed in the final episode of one season and the execution being in the second episode of the next season *really* appears to be pushing things...Naraht (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)