Entertainment desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 10

paper mario and zelda

I was trying to decide which game I should by for the virtual console. Paper Mario or A link to the past. I'd like sevral people who have played both games to say which one they think I should get. Thanks.--76.176.124.169 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question would probably be better placed at a gaming forum. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, the correct answer is both of them. Poechalkdust (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Olympics

I would like to find out in which Olympic Games did women first start participating, and in which Olympic Games did Australian women specifically, first start participating.

ThanksHenry786252 (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1900 in Paris for the first question (the second modern Olypics), and 1912 for the second, per this. Fribbler (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of foreign dancing video

Resolved

– StuRat (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a video someone showed me about half a year ago, where this man, possibly Arab, danced around and sang ridiculously. I don't remember what the language of the song was (again, possibly Arabic), but the video was just this man and the scenery was all psychedelic. It was fast paced, and had a chorus they kept repeating, and for the love of god I can't remember what it was. There was absolutely no point to the video, at all, except to make us laugh at how completely ridiculous it was, if that helps. Someone help me out here! (A youtube link would be nice, too!) Jared (t) 04:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably thinking of Tunak Tunak Tun 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's it. Haha, thanks a "tun". Jared (t) 23:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the video but the description reminds me of whirling dervishes. See Wikipedia listing for "Dervish". There is a Muslim sect, Sufi, in which members spin rapidly, using physical movement to reach religious ecstacy.Quakerlady (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing quite so tasteful. It is a bhangra/pop hybrid. Also, the singer is Indian... I'm not sure how you confused him for an Arab. Plasticup ^T/C 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2

What is the correct plural form of PlayStation 2: "PlayStation 2's" or "PlayStations 2"? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'd get a better answer at the Language desk but I don't like to use apostrophes if might confuse between possession and plurality. "PlayStaion 2s" and "PS2s" can also be alternatives. The sentence "I have three PlayStations 2" seems weird but it might be acceptable. See English plural#Plurals of symbols and initialisms. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to try to find a way to write or speak the information without needing the plural. "See that Playstation 2? I have three of them." --LarryMac | Talk 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always heard the plural of PS2 as the former of the two. Paragon12321 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2s - based on "the 747s collided head on" - X201 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation 2s is correct, although to be honest I use Playstation 2's in cases where accuracy is not important, since reading it is so much easier. However, the former is assuredly correct, while that latter is assuredly not. I suggest "Playstation 2s" with the caveat that I don't use it. You could try to look through Sony Entertainment's press releases on how many they shipped at various times, and follow their style, though they probably avoid the situation by saying "Playstation 2" early in the sentence, then saying "consoles" later to pluralize it.200.42.217.61 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does China receive more gold medals than India in the Olympics?

China and India are about the same size, but India never seems to get as many gold medals as China. why? 203.206.11.162 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "same size" you mean population (in very rough figures - China 1.3 billion, India 1.1 billion), because geographically they're obviously quite disparate. In any case, the number of people has little or no bearing on athletic ability. Take 100 adolescent males vs 100 senior citizen females and have them race. The groups are the same size, why do the males win more of the races? You need to consider culture, per capita income, availability of training facilities, and so on. --LarryMac | Talk 14:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that having a large population doesn't affect a country's sporting performance? Also, what part of the Indian culture stops them from getting a comparable amount of medals to China? 203.206.11.162 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the top ten medal winning countries at the 2004 Olympic Games, with their ranking by population added:

1 United States (3)

2 China (1)

3 Russia (9)

4 Australia (53)

5 Japan (10)

6 Germany (14)

7 France (19)

8 Italy (23)

9 South Korea (25)

10 Great Britain (22)

Most of these are at the top end of the population scale, but population doesn't count for everything. Only four of the top ten by population are in the top ten by medals. The other six finish at various places down the chart with Brazil at 16, Indonesia at 48, India at 65 and Nigeria at 68. Pakistan and Bangladesh didn't get any medals at all in 2004.

A better indicator of success may be economic development. Seven of the eight member nations of the G8 are in the top ten. The top seven countries in the world, ranked by GDP, are in the top ten medal winners. The other three are ranked at 11, 13, and 14 on the GDP list.

Interestingly though, India is ranked 12th by GDP but still doesn't do well in medals. The three top ten GDP countries that didn't make the top ten medal winners are Canada, Spain, and Brazil who finished 21st, 20th, and 16th in medal counts.

So, population and economy are both important, but they aren't everything. I think that history and attitudes play a key role. Of the top ten medal winners, seven are (arguably) nations that have been developed for a long time and that have a history of sporting success going back many years. (Five of them were in the top ten back in 1908. At least two of the others seem to have made sport a priority in their development in an effort to show the world that they too were advanced and successful. Sporting success was a significant part of the USSR's policies during the Cold War; similarly China has placed a priority on sports over the last decade. India does not seem to have felt the need to make the same efforts. - Eron^Talk 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) No, I'm not sure, but the burden of proof is on you to show that population alone is a factor. Anecdotally, I think it clearly is not - Germany won more medals than the US at the 2006 Winter Olympics, and the populations are 82 million vs 300 million. By your hypothesis, the US should have won over 3 times as many medals, right? As far as culture, I mentioned that only as one potential additional factor. Perhaps athleticism is not emphasised in India to the extent that it is in China. A really crucial consideration - How many athletes will India be sending to this years games? How many will China send? --LarryMac | Talk 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that population alone was the only factor in determining success at the Olympics. I was just trying to compare India to another country that was worth comparing to. If it's true that Indians aren't interested with sports, I wonder why? 203.206.11.162 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating a bit but I suspect there is another factor. The USSR made it a matter of national pride to excel at sporting events, and instituted special training for gifted athletes, especially gymnasts. I believe China did (does?) much the same. I don't believe India has anything like the same kinds of programs. They are too busy training top quality engineers. :-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because cricket isn't an Olympic sport? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is Kabaddi? Fribbler (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cricket. When the IOC admits cricket, boomerang throwing and farnarkling as Olympic sports, maybe then the Olympics will start to be seen as a valid competition worthy of the attention of the serious-minded people whose opinions count for anything. Until then, it's just a minor sideshow to the main events. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farnarkling? Is this some joke that's gone over my head? Dismas|^(talk) 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farnarkling is defined by the Urban Dictionary as "the group activity whereby everyone sits around discussing the need to 'do something' but nothing actually happens." --Bowlhover (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a favourite pastime of committees. You know, those entities comprised of people who individually can do nothing, but as a group decide that nothing can be done (an important distinction). But at least they've talked about the matter, and we all know how important talking is. :) JackofOz (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the world champion team were actually in charge of organising the 2000 Olympic Games. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The best Olympics ever" (Samaranch) - but think how much better they'd have been with those 199 countries all playing cricket against each other. It would have taken 6 months, but hey, cricket lovers are used to interminable matches. Outsiders might think that a 5-day test match with no certainty of a result must by definition be the world's worst game, but we who know better know the exact opposite is true. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Rm indent). Unfortunately, Jack, if they do include cricket, they'll probably go for this nonsense which (while it has its uses), imo, shouldn't be called "cricket". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the world champion team organising the 2000 Games, they did. Do Neville Dorf and Stewie Davidson still play in the Aussie national farnarkeling team? :) As to cricket, given that the ICC now have over 100 member nations who play the sport, who knows? A shame about the likelihood of it being Twenty20, though you're probably right - the best comment I've heard about it is "expecting a test-playing nation to also compete at Twenty20 is like expecting Tiger Woods to play Crazy golf". Grutness...wha? 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just "not cricket". StuRat (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horses for courses, really. Huge crowds attend Twenty20 matches (and not just in India either), and clearly their primary interest is seeing a quick, exciting ball-and-bat game. Debating whether it should have "cricket" as part of its name is something you can do while watching it (or not). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps conservative Islamic nations underperform in the Olympics, at least in women's games, because it would be considered indecent for women to train in public or wear athletic clothing. It's hard to imagine gymnastics in a burqa, for example. Men's games might also suffer from those who insist on wearing full beards, which must be a disadvantage in some sports, like swimming. Then there was the Taliban in Afghanistan, who turned a soccer stadium donated by western nations into an execution stadium, showing that they prefer executions over sports. India has a substantial Muslim population, so that may be one factor in their lack of medals. It also seems to me that India puts much more emphasis on intellectual development than physical prowess, which also explains the number of doctorates they produce (far more than the number of jobs available for them). StuRat (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling India a "conservative Islamic nation" is probably not the most accurate description in the world, though. Sure, it has a substantial Moslem population - and that may have some effect - but that wouldn't explain why countries like Iran, Egypt, and Morocco tend to do better at the Olympics than India (all with a higher overall medal count, and with just a fraction of the population). Grutness...wha? 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why I didn't call India that. I merely stated why conservative Muslim nations would perform poorly in the Olympics, then extended that to India's Muslim population. I also proposed another explanation, the emphasis on development of the mind over the body, since the conservative Muslim explanation is obviously not the whole story. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, India has a 13% Muslim population. That's less than the proportion of the USA who report themselves as without religion. Algebraist 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That 13% (although it depends on the status you assign to areas disputed with Pakistan) is something like 100 million Muslims, making it the nation with the second largest Muslim population. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a video story on TV years ago in which young children in China were selected to be gymnasts. It was a great honor for them to be chosen, and they were taken by their parents to the training school and left there to live and train as professionals. My memory is that these children were in the age range of 4 - 6 years old. That kind of national practice could make a difference. In my personal experience, I recently saw Chinese acrobats at a circus in Baltimore, Maryland. They were so good they blew my mind. I'd guess the age range was 10 - 18 years old and there were at least 15 young men in the troupe. I have no information on other sports in China, but I do wonder if athletes in China get the chance to have any personal life at all?Quakerlady (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360 "Red Ring of Doom"

What is Red Ring of Doom/Death? How it is caused? How can it be avoided? Is there any potential threat now, after almost 4 years after Xbox 360's release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.70.29 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Red ring of death. Dismas|^(talk) 15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Matters being 80s

Does Family Matters count as an 80s show? Heegoop, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From the article, "The series aired from September 22, 1989 to May 9, 1997 on ABC and, with a network change, moved to CBS on September 19, 1997 to July 17, 1998." So probably not. --LarryMac | Talk 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And more likely not because the show itself was not so much based upon 80's events, as it reflected the year{s) it aired. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kingston

I am an intern at Rondor Music who is owned by Universal. My boss Kevin Hall would like Sylvester "Sly" Jordan Jr. to be credited as a writer for the song "Beautiful Girls". I am aware that you can edit certain sections and add information. However, this information is in the dialog box in the right hand side of the page with the song information. This does not have a 'edit' tag to click.

If you could make the changes, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time, Ben Queen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.29.197 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can click "edit this page" at the top of the page, but your change will be quickly reverted if you can't back up the information with documentation from a respectable resource. You can claim to work for Rondor Music. So can I. So can about 6 billion people. So, claiming to work for Rondor is not a valid reference. -- kainaw ™ 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And worse, the claim to work for the company could make any contribution subject to scrutiny under Wikipedia:COI Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]