Entertainment desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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.

April 13

Hercules and the Augean stables in film

What are some depictions of Hercules (or Heracles) cleaning the Augean stables in film? I am particular interested in color, live action films from 1985 or earlier.

I checked that neither Hercules (1958 film) nor Hercules Unchained contains this labor.

I recall seeing such a thing, but I cannot recall if was swords and sandals or Ray Harryhausen. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Account

Hi, how can I delete my IGN account? There doesn't seem to be any FAQs or help on the site so I was thinking there's maybe been other users in the same situation. Can you even delete it or should I just leave it? Chevymontecarlo. 06:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have a contact page. Help from them might come just as fast as an answer from one of us. And it's likely to be more complete and accurate. Dismas|^(talk) 06:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Chevymontecarlo. 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football player identification

Hi, I am trying to add a description to this photo. Can anyone help me with the year and the player's names? It looks like a World Cup because they have a familiar emblem on their arms, but I can't remember what World Cup it is. Can anyone help? Chevymontecarlo. 06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Sotirios Kyrgiakos on the ground, playing for Greece. Don't recognize the other player.--Michig (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other player appears to be Etey Schechter (FIFA link). Compare with this image. From the game Greece - Israel on 1 April 2009? ---Sluzzelin talk 07:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will add you information. Thanks. Chevymontecarlo. 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US translation: This Q is about soccer. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that the soccer ball in the image would have given that away, Stu. Dismas|^(talk) 23:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone looks at the photos. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If the question had been about American football, would you have said "UK translation: this Q is about American football"? I think not, so why explain it for the benefit of Americans? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the title had just said "football", and was actually about American football, then, yes, I would have added a clarification. Just calling either game "football" is unclear. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Fellini

i heard Federico Fellini movies are whats bad is good good is bad ect i like movies like that. can someone suggest one of his movies for me to watch?

La Dolce Vita would be the one to start off with. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly fond of I clowns. His segment of the anthology film Histoires extraordinaires (Spirits of the Dead) is also interesting, though you have to sit through the dreadful Roger Vadim/Jane Fonda segment to get to the Malle and Fellini segments. Deor (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which one of his movies has the bad guy as the good guy?

I don't know how interested Fellini was in good v. evil, but he certainly had a heart for people on the fringe of society, as well as for the more humane of human "vices". Perhaps you mean the swindlers in Il bidone. His sympathy for the underdog can be felt in Le notti di Cabiria. Prostitutes get a non-judgmental treatment in Roma too. Then there are the lazy good-for-nothings in I vitelloni. Satyricon is a feast of vices. It is even difficult not to feel anything for the violent, brutal Zampanò in La strada. The cold Casanova is perhaps an unlikable exception in the warm world of Fellini. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire odd question

A few minutes ago on UK TV was this question: Which is nearest to the equator: Mount Rushmore, the Suez Canal, the Gobi Desert, or Ayers Rock? And the man said it was.....Ayers Rock. Is that correct? 89.240.34.241 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terse. 89.240.34.241 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic coordinates for these locations are (or should be) at the top of each article. Uluru (Ayers Rock) is about 25 degrees south of the equator, the Suez Canal is about 30 degrees north, the Gobi Desert is... (the article doesn't say, but about 45 degrees north), and Mount Rushmore about 43 degrees north - so Ayers Rock is closest to the equator by some distance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said the Suez Canal. 89.240.34.241 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated by the fact that two of the items, the Gobi Desert and the Suez Canal, are big enough to have a range of coords. But, in this case, I'd take it to mean "which of those places, at it's closest point, is closest to the equator". I'm not sure if using the farthest point would make a diff, though, but I bet it would if we had to choose between Mount Rushmore and the Gobi Desert only. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, Uluru is way closer to the Equator than any point in either the Gobi or the Suez. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a factoid illusion, brought about by Captain Cook probing into the far south and still not finding Australia. It must be a lot further north than I had supposed. 89.240.34.241 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read your history, mate? Cook did "find" Australia, in 1770, although he was far from the first. Australia is not as far south as New Zealand, Argentina or Chile, or parts thereof. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed even NZ isn't that far south compared to a number of places in the Northern hemisphere. Invercargill is 46°25.5′S which is closer to the equator then Bern 46°57′N Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Americans (I don't know about others) tend to mentally place the equator farther north than it really is. So, Australia appears to be further south than it really is. This first came to my attention after I did a deployment in Panama and I was asked by a rather intelligent person if it was my first trip south of the equator. Since then, I've heard people talking about being in the southern hemisphere while in Egypt and Israel. I'm not sure how widespread this is. It is one of those things where I noticed it and now it stands out when I hear others make similar comments. -- kainaw ™ 04:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne's Invercargill reference is very telling. It's the world's most southerly city. Yet it’s still closer to the equator than Berne, and there are many, many cities further north than Berne and thus even further away from the equator. This graphically illustrates how top heavy the world is, and why the old Mercator projection is still the one in most people’s heads, which makes the northern lands look bigger and more dominant than they are. For example, Russia appears to be larger than the entire continent of Africa, but in truth it's not that large. So, consequently the southern lands seem smaller and more distant than they really are. But there's a huge chunk of Australia that's above the Tropic of Capricorn. And the northen tip of Queensland is only a few miles south of the coast of New Guinea. Not that very far from the Equator. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw has an interesting point although the OP is British I believe (IP looks up to the UK and they're referring to the UK version of the show). I'm guessing quite a few people think the entirety of South America is in the southern hemisphere. (Of course this part of the confusion could be avoided if we stick with the Americas being one continent as I believe many of those living in 'South America' do.) And I mentioned this in another desk on an unrelated issue but enough people think Kuala Lumpur is in the southern hemisphere that so does a learning bot although that's perhaps just as much a lack of knowledge of where KL is as anything however it does mean they're not aware that most of Indonesia, parts of the Maldives and the entirety of East Timor are the only parts of Asia in the southern hemisphere.

BTW, the most southern city is perhaps Puerto Williams in Chile 54°56′S or Ushuaia in Argentina 54°48′S or something in South America anyway (and not that different in latitude) depending on your definition, unless you need 1 million in which case it's Melbourne. Of course the fact that the southern most city with 1 million people is 37°48′49″S is a story in itself. Anyway see List of southernmost items and Southernmost settlements. Invercargill is the southernmost city in NZ. South America is significantly more south then NZ (not counting territories) although it't a small part.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where "quite a few people [who] think the entirety of South America is in the southern hemisphere" think Equador is, then? :) FiggyBee (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key reason people believe that the equator is north of where it really is is that as the people above have pointed out, populated Europe (for example) extends much further north than the Southern hemisphere does south. They'd rule a line that suggested land mass was vaguely equal north and south. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]