Entertainment desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

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.

November 28

Losing season team getting into NFl playoffs

Barring the 1980- somthing strike (I want to say 82, but I'm not sure) caused conditions, is there any way a team with a losing record can get into the playoffs? (I believe it's going to have to be as a wildcard) I know the Chargers got in back in '08 with an 8-8 record, so I was wondering if that could be applied to, say, a 7-9? Buggie111 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why a division leader can't have a losing record. Have you checked the NFC West lately? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the expanded playoffs of 1982, as a result of that years strike-shortened season, no team has ever yet made the playoffs. Strictly speaking, the worst record a team could have and make the playoffs is 3-13. In order for that to happen, every team in a division would have to lose ALL of its out-of-division games, and the teams within the division each split their 6 games with the other divisional foes. That would leave 4 teams ALL tied with a record of 3-13, and then one of them would have to go to the playoffs, whichever won the relevent tie-breaker, which is probably total points scored. --Jayron32 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And Clarityfiend, the Seahawks are 5-5. I'm a Pats fan by heart, but I once lived in the area of the NFC West and have seen it's low-level graduation rate. Buggie111 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Hawks (sob) could easily lose to Atlanta, Tampa Bay, and ~~possibly~~ KC. That leaves the 49ers, Rams and Panthers. One loss there and they'd be below .500.

The Rams will probably lose to the Saints and maybe to KC. One more loss in three divisional games or against the Broncos, and they're 7-9.

The 49ers are guaranteed a losing season with two losses, say to the Packers and Chargers.

Arizona Cardinals? Do we even have to go there? Dallas should beat them, and one more loss against one of the other sad sacks on their schedule would do them in.

So it wouldn't surprise me to see the first losing playoff divisional leader come out of this miserable excuse for a division. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 1982 was the year of the strike. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start bickering with you, but the Cards made it to the Superbowl two years ago, and (drumroll...) they actually had a winning season! Oh, and it's nice to know your'e a seattle fan. I rooted for the hawks in the superbowl back in '04. Buggie111 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, try getting into the playoffs in the CFL. There are only 8 teams, and 6 make the playoffs. As long as you aren't the bottom 2, no matter your record you can make it in. Aaronite (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the league that has two different teams called the Rough Riders? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the league with the Roughriders and the Rough Riders. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, as the Ottawa team hasn't existed for years. (But they did play each other in the 1966 Grey Cup!) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that a team can actually do worse than 3-13 and make the playoffs. If one division's teams all lost their out-of-division games and tied all of their in-division games, they would all be 0-10-6. At that point, I believe tiebreakers would come into play and determine the division winner. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Film about Ardennes Offensive

Does anyone know the name of a low budget British film made pre-2003 about the Ardennes Offensive of 1944-45, and seen from the point of view of the German SS forces that took part? I watched it (on video in Japan) a long time ago and have been looking for it ever since, but I can't remember the name of it. As it was a low budget film, there were no actors that I recognize in it so I can't give any hints there. The voice of Graham McTavish greatly resembles the voice of the main actor in the film - it could be him, but I can't find anything in his listing on the IMDb that could be the film, plus I am not sure if it even is him. I can say that it was produced by (at?) BBC Pebble Mill Studios. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunker was a low-budget 2001 British film about German troops (don't remember if they were SS) in the Ardennes Offensive, but I can find no link between this film and Pebble Mill. Does anything on our page or the IMDb page look familiar? --Antiquary (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the one. I haven't seen that before, but I think I'll be interested in it. Still, it's this other one I was looking for. I have some more information. It was filmed with the help of '[something] Battle Group' - presumably a re-enactment group. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV in UK

Unresolved

I have a digital aerial and the tv keeps pixillating on ITV channels. It is also slipping form input:antenna to input:AV1. Is it the weather? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our digital aerial always plays up when the leaves on the trees are wet, and it's got worse as it has aged. We assume wet leaves are particularly good at stopping the signal. We often get pixilation like that, and it tends to be on a set of channels (like ITV), and is worse on channels that have less money behind them (presumably less power, or less duplication in case of signal interruption?). So, it is very possible that yours is also weather-related, and also to do with the aerial aging. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess positions with the most queens, rooks, etc. of one color

What is the chess position with the most queens of one color which has occured in an actual chess match? What about rooks, bishops, and knights? --84.61.183.12 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean grandmaster level matches (they rarely, if at all, go beyong a queen and/or two rooks, and the like)? or any old game? The former is relatively to research, but going through all the recorded matches ever created would be probably impossible. regardless, a chess game database (fritz?) would probably be the most useful... 70.241.22.82 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the first external link in World records in chess. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in track listings, indicate writer or producer? why?

In articles on albums, in the track listing section: Why is the 2nd column 'producer' instead of 'writer'. In an article I want to edit may I make a songwriter column on addition to the producer column? Albums do indicate who wrote the song as well as who produced it afterall. I recall 8yrs ago back when WP start the 2nd colum was 'writer'. Is 'producer' the new format? Thank You. 69.243.24.147 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example or two? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the question be passed to Template talk:WikiProject Albums? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese twins in football

Hi everyone. What would happen if siamese twins decided to play in a football match? Would they be counted as one or two players? SwampyQ2 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would count as two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of things are never really specified in the rules. There's no way to know for sure until some ruling body makes a ruling on it. APL (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine any scenario, outside maybe the Special Olympics or a P.E. class, where any coach would even consider using conjoined twins on an athletic team. But if so, they are separate souls, and would logically have to count as two players. The Hensel twins, for example, had to take the driving test twice, even though it was the same "body" driving both times. That does raise the question, though, as to whether they have played any kind of sports. I'll see if the article says anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling [hensel twins sports], there are many references (many of which are parrots) indicating that they play sports, but no apparent information as to whether they count as one or two. I would also beware of linking to those pages, as some of them appear to be adware sites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an advantage in Chess boxing. If one twin is groggy from a pummeling, the other could still play chess with a clear head. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read somewhere about two conjoined twins (joined at the hip with three legs between them) recently winning a marathon. They supposedly were counted as two separate competitors for the purpose of numbering, but were given one speedometer (?) between them, and of course, for the prize money they were considered one. I can't recall where I found this story, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lars and Olif Po maybe? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing. It would be like running a sack race. I think this reinforces APL's initial comment, namely that there are generally no rules covering these things, and that when or if the situation arises, the particular authorative body for the sport or event would make a customized decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Published on Wednesday, April 01, 2009. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Well, even so, the absence of a rule dealing with conjoined twins would likely require a sport or event to invent a rule if the need arose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, "Lars Olif Po" is an anagram of "April Fools". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I wish I could have claimed credit for playing this 'trick' on you all - almost expertly done (i.e. by proxy through CFriend), it could have been said. Sadly, I fell for it, too :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That's "fiend" by the way, not "friend". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]