Entertainment desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 13

Movie: An artist who consumes pills himself in order to write a book

Does anybody know the name of a movie about a writer who suffers a writer's block and starts consuming pills in order to be able to write again? I think that after writing a book in one day or something like that, he also enters the stock market. The film is relatively recent (last year or so?). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.177.239 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limitless? Limitless—"After finishing his book he focuses on trading stocks..." Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the one. Thanks!! --190.31.177.239 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

famous rnb song about a dead dude

I'm trying to remember the name of an R&B song. I'm fairly certain it was about a dead guy. It was a single, and the music video involved a bunch of people walking up a mountain or something. I think at the top there was an angel. I'm pretty sure it was a big hit or something in the '90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.54.208 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Thugs-n-Harmony - Tha Crossroads? --Onorem ♠Dil 02:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you. --130.216.54.208 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

E1 Music / Entertainment One confusion

On 1 December 2011, while trying to research a classical CD issued on the "Koch" label, I ran across two separate articles dealing with Koch:

E1 Music, and
Entertainment One.

Confused as to the distinction, I left a nearly identical message on the talkpages for both articles,

asking "What is the difference between E1 Music and Entertainment One? Why are there two separate articles that don't even acknowledge each other? E1 Music doesn't even have a disambiguation at E1." Neither of these posts has yet been addressed by any editor.

(Edit: That is, E1 does disambiguate to Entertainment One, not to E1 Music.)

Eventually on 21 December I posted a merger proposal tag at the top of each article, suggesting that E1 Music be merged into Entertainment One, since the latter appeared to be the more-developed article. In the meantime no substantive edits have been made to E1 Music, while several have been to Entertainment One. And most recently (as of this post), an IP with a red talkpage has deleted the merger proposal tag from Entertainment One.

I'm in no position to edit either article, since I have no information to provide. I don't want to revert the deletion of the tag, but have no way to contact this anonymous editor. What's really needed here is someone who understands the content of the two articles, and is able to make an informed decision as to whether merger - or at least some acknowledgement of the distinction - would be appropriate. Thanks for any help. (I earlier posted this identical request at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Status of a merger proposal, but was advised to come here instead.) Milkunderwood (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment One is the holding company, E1 Music is the record label subsidiary. Where a holding company's only purpose is (or effectively is) to hold a single trading company, we often make the holding companies name a redirect to the trading company. In this case the holding company holds a bunch of trading companies, and both articles deserve independent existence. The articles should refer to each other and that has been fixed. I also added the dab entry. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

OK, that will solve the problem then. Thanks very much for your help. I've deleted the merge tag at E1 Music. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

plot of a movie

What was the plot of the indian bollywood movie named 'Nau Do Gyarah' starring Dev Anand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.205.184 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article has a link to the film's entry at IMDB, which has a plot summary. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converting a song to 8 bit chiptune

Yes, I know you have to do it yourself, but how? What program should I use (what programs do exist for making it)? (I got windows 7). When I search on Google, it always redirect me to forums where people ask for a 8 bit converter.. with really bad answers on it. I don't know why with this types of topics Google _sucks a lot searching for useful things, anyway, What can I use for start "converting" music to 8-bit chiptune? Thanks! --190.60.93.218 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC) _{_{found some useful information here [1] but there are any other tutorials like these? 190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

There are trackers that could emulate the 8bit sound, such as what is now OpenMPT. As far as I can remember you have to import your own samples, and most trackers are a bit on the shady side as far as ethics are concerned. This may not be what you are asking for, as I am not aware of any "converters" for chiptune. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup i already have OpenMPT but it seems to be meant for MIDI anyway I'm going to investigate it. lol --190.60.93.218 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

character personalities?

I've noticed that a lot of stories (it seems) have cheerful/relaxed people as protagonists, with a quieter/more serious people as (the) antagonists (eg. Naruto, The Three Musketeers, Lord of the Flies). Are there any well known examples of the opposite(with the protagonist being a more quite/serious type and the antagonist as a cheerful/relaxed type)? 99.43.78.36 (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are many examples in the movies, as the serious character of the protagonist indicates his determination. Die Hard is the first one that comes to mind. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman is much quieter and more serious than the Joker. Meelar (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ender's Game. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you counting as the antagonist there? Peter? Meelar (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One often used trope is the person or people (often kids) who know about a threat but can't convince anyone to believe them. I'm not sure if you would consider the authorities who ignore them to be the antagonists, though. The Blob is one of many examples. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robocop? old bean. Robocop is well, rather robotic and Clarence Boddicker and his gang while very nasty pieces of work do seem to enjoy their criminal activities. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some relevant examples by browsing "Affably Evil" and related pages at TV Tropes. Deor (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A surprising omission from the TV Tropes listings (unless I overlooked her/it) is Captain Bangladesh Dupree of the Girl Genius webcomic. Mind you, several other characters are not half-bad examples, including Lucrezia Mongfish, several other Sparks, and arguably most if not all of the Jägermonsters. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.161 (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman lol 190.60.93.218 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Dog and Glory, Face/Off spring to mind FreeMorpheme (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers financial reports

Can anyone point me to the Green Bay Packers financial reports? Googling things like packers financial report seems to yield dozens of news stories and a few press releases and reports, but I want the actual reports, and none of the stories I've read actually links to the report. An EDGAR search at sec.gov yields nothing. (For those interested, alone among all NFL teams, the Packers are a publicly traded organization, and as such are required to issue an annual financial report.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's publically traded? The website [2] says this:

Can I buy Packers stock?

No. The Packers have had four stock sales over team history: 1923, 1935, 1950 and most recently in 1997. A total of 4,748,910 shares are owned by 111,507 stockholders (no one person can own more than 200,000 shares to prevent an individual from attempting to take control of the team). Not only are the Packers no longer selling shares, but existing shares may not be resold or otherwise redistributed. Click here to learn more.

If the shares can't be bought or sold, I would think that would mean it is not publically traded. RudolfRed (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See History of the Green Bay Packers#Public company. I take your point that perhaps shares are not supposed to be exchanged for money, or "traded", but by "publicly traded" I meant that it was a public company. Regardless, they issue annual reports, and I want 'em. Thank you - Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Packers are currently in the midst of a stock sale right now, so yes, you can buy some. The sale began Dec. 6, 2011, and runs through Feb. 29, 2012. Details are here. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that the OP may want to note about the Packers "stock" is that it is pretty much worthless as an investment vehicle: it carries almost no rights, pays no dividends, and cannot be sold, transferred, or exchanged (though I think it can be passed to an heir on the death of the stockholder, or given as a gift to a family member). A shareholder does have the right to vote in elections for the Green Bay Packers Board of Directors, but that is about it. The Packers stock is basically a fund-raising gimmick and a tool to keep the Packers in a small city like Green Bay; having a distributed ownership makes it impossible to move the team. That's why the NFL actually specifically forbids corporate ownership; the Packers are the sole exemption to the rule. --Jayron32 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First advert for dogs

Hopefully this is one our Australian readers can solve. There's an ad for Bakers dog food airing in the UK this evening which is the first commercial aimed specifically at dogs to go out here (see Daily Telegraph article for further details). The telegraph article claims Nestle Purina showed a similar ad in Australia last year, and although there's an article from The Guardian from October 2011 announcing plans to show the ad there, I can find no evidence that it was actually aired. Can anyone tell me if it has gone out in Australia? Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it was screen in Austria (alps, Mozart and schnitzel) not in Australia (sharks, spiders, snakes and speak Straylan). Explains why I never saw the ad. Might be more successful if you try searching in German. The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, how embarrassing to make that mistake. It does indeed say Austria. I thought it was a bit odd that I couldn't find anything about it, and I imagine there would be something. Explains why now. I'll take a look and get back to you. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from the Daily Mail from October 2011. So I wonder if it has aired in Austria yet. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Athletic F.C. 7-6 Huddersfield Town F.C.

This article states that this game is the only time in the history of professional football that a team has scored 6 goals and lost. I find this hard to believe. Is this accurate? In over a century of professional play no team in any country, at any level has scored 6 goals and lost? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hard to believe on the face of it. Certainly, some team has scored more than 6 goals and lost at some time in history, given the thousands of fully professional teams playing around the world for the past century or so. --Jayron32 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I tried googling "most goals by a losing soccer team" and all I got was the Wikipedia article. But as you say, it seems extremely unlikely that it has never happened. Anyone have any ideas of how I can search for an answer? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somewhere in the archives of here, or you could enquire.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Top 10 of Football lists the highest-scoring matches in various leagues, but doesn't have anything matching that result (Atletico Bilbao 9-5 Racing Santander is a good one, though). It's far from exhaustive, but it makes it appear plausible. This article (not a reliable source) claims that 6-6 is the highest-scoring draw in any country's top league, which would be a comparable record. Warofdreams talk 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if one were to restrict the criteria to top-flight or first class leagues, or further restrict it to include league or regular season play, then it becomes a lot more plausible. For example, the above game is listed (without a citation, I might add) at Football records in England. Now, England is a much smaller subset of the soccer playing world and it makes it more plausible if we only consider that. --Jayron32 23:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you count indoor soccer, six goals for a losing team would not be remarkable. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austria v Switzerland (1954) was 7–5 in a World Cup quarterfinal. There have only been 19 World Cups. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a team should score more than 6 goals and still lose, the minimum possible result is 8–7. Googling those numbers together with some basic keywords will usually yield publications about the 8–7 penalty shoot-out score of Zambia's win over Côte d'Ivoire just a couple of days ago in this year's African Championship, but I did manage to find a page listing some match results from the premier league of Madagascar. It lists a score as large as 11–12, as well as an 8–7 score and two 7–6 scores. However, double-checking the Madagascar section of Soccerway, those seem to actually be penalty shoot-out scores too. I hadn't encountered the footballscores.com website before, but it's odd that a match results database shouldn't be explicitly indicating it when a score is a score after penalties. --Theurgist (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]