Entertainment desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30

Actual licence holder of MLP 2010 relaunch (including FIM) for Japan?

I thought it was Bushiroad that holds Japanese domestic licence for Hasbro's 2010 relaunch of My Little Pony media franchise, including its Friendship is Magic TV series. But I found a copyright disclaimer in the official Japanese website. I'm not fluent in Japanese at all, but judging from the wording, I think it is actually We've Inc. (WP ja article) that holds Japanese rights for all things G4 MLP, while Bushiroad does marketing using all their resources like Milky Holmes voice actresses. If my theory is proved to be right, I'm going to fix all the related statements within English Wikipedia. I need someone fluent in Japanese and understands anime industry to help me. Who's with me? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 12:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just learned that the Japanese version of FIM is an AT-X/We've Inc. co-production. What are We've actually doing with FIM? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 07:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you think you can dance season 10

I made a big mistake. On the page of So you think you can dance season 10, I just wanted that changed Malece was in danger, but it came out differently. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.160.255.127 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit; thanks for coming here for help. Please go back and put in what you meant to add. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket terminology

A ball being bowled. From back to front -- umpire (with hat), wicket, non-striking batsman (yellow), bowler (blue), ball, pitch, crease, striking batsman (yellow), wicket, wicket keeper (blue,crouching) and fielder (blue,slip position)

This image is used in this way with this caption in the Cricket article. What are the pitch and the crease? Is the crease simply the horizontal line near the top, with the black splotches on it? And what's the pitch? I understand that a cricket pitch is the whole field area, but despite reading the section, I can't figure out what part of the pitch we're talking about. It might help if someone would annotate the original image. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question: any reason why you brought this to the notoriously unhelpful ref desk as opposed to asking someone from the cricket project to help? To help with your specific concerns, I would take a look at the entries you're querying at the Glossary of cricket terms article. If, after that, you're still confused, the cricket project would be by far the best destination for your question, this place will most likely descend into banter and comedy rather than assistance. [For what it's worth, try cricket pitch and crease (cricket) to help you understand the image...] The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old ballpark with "pitch" remnant

If you're familiar with baseball but not with cricket, you may find Comparison of cricket and baseball interesting. In soccer, the entire field is called the pitch. In cricket, it's just the area between the bowler and the batsman. In the 19th century, when cricket and baseball were less dissimilar, baseball fields typically had a similar feature. Some of them still do, but just as decorations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Moving on: the pitch is the long pinkish rectangular area on which bowling and batting occur. There are two creases, one at either end. They're the areas within which the batsmen stand when batting, behind the line and in front of the wicket. For clarification, a batsman may be out of his crease when actually batting, but must have some part of his body or the bat in the crease (and touching the ground) to defend it in the case of an attempt to stump him (meaning, the wicket keeper or another fielder throws the ball at the wicket and dislodges the bails). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the rules require the batsman to guard the wicket, or is he allowed to be an idiot and just watch the ball go by and hit the wicket? (I'm guessing yes, to prevent the match being a farce, but anything's possible.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idiocy is allowed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting question Bugs. If you prevent the ball from hitting the wicket with your bat after you've already hit it with the bat, you could be given out "hitting the ball twice". If you stop it with your foot you could be given out "leg before wicket". If you stop it with your hand you could be given out "handled the ball". I shall do a little more research on this today as I'm sure I've seen a case recently in which the batsman successfully defended his wicket. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC) So the Laws of Cricket, Law 34 has specific provision for this: the batsman can hit the ball twice solely for the purpose of guarding his wicket. I guess that the Umpire must decide if that was the purpose of the second strike - and it's possible the Umpire could give the batsman out if he thought that was not the purpose! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to visualize a circumstance where the batsman would need to hit the ball twice to protect the wicket. Maybe if he hit it a glancing blow and it was coming straight down toward the wicket? But if I understand that rule correctly, he's not allowed to prevent the wicket keeper (or other fielder) from catching the ball (and presumably then being put out.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters, a batsman can be out hitting the ball twice without the ball touching the bat. For the purposes of further complicating matters, I have included an image showing the various crease markings on the pitch. The crease is not the painted line, it is an intersection of the painted line and unpainted grass.

Hack (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the baseball comparison, the creases are comparable to the pitcher's plate (which was originally a box marked on flat ground) and the batter's box. You can think of cricket as being kind of like baseball with just two bases, as with the game called one old cat. As with tennis, they switch ends after a defined interval (after every six fairly-delivered balls, i.e. an "over"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illusion

OK, I am stumped. Can anyone offer any insight into how this illusion might be achieved? See: Pepsi Max & Dynamo present: "Bus Levitation". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

harnessed. 70.174.141.142 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Awesome explanation ... it makes perfect sense. And, yes, you will notice that his hand (and all of the fingers) suspiciously never move at all. A related question. This was clearly done out in the public, in traffic, on a public street. Wouldn't this somehow be illegal? What would probably be the specific illegality? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would in be illegal? I'm sure that Pepsi were able to obtain permission to film the stunt. In some of the shots showing the back of the bus there is what appears to be a motorcycle police esccort. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know/realize that Pepsi filmed this as a stunt/commercial. I assumed that the guy himself (Dynamo) just did this on his own to "trick"/surprise people as a publicity stunt. So, if Pepsi had not obtained some special permission, then clearly it would be illegal (hence, the need to obtain permission). I didn't notice police escorts; I was focused on looking at the stunt itself. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that London has some sort of law restricting causing a distraction to drivers. That's probably the closest you'd find to any law that would restrict doing this without some form of permit or license. Dismas|^(talk) 10:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the illusion is to make the viewer think that this is happening spontaneously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is exactly what I thought! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick scan through the Highway Code, and (as I thought) it is incumbent on the driver not to be distracted, which is called Driving without due care and attention. If there was an offence, I'm sure that the police motorcyclist shown in the clip would have had something to say about it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the law you cite is an offense that the driver commits. Correct? What I meant was: isn't the magician himself (Dynamo) committing an offense by doing that? (Assuming no special permission was granted.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unlikely that the driver would have not noticed all the people staring out the bus window, along with the others staring at the bus and not have stopped unless they knew what was going on. Apparently every one of the London boroughs has a film office (film commission) where you can apply to film in the city. Here is the one for the City of London and this is for filming on buses. Though why does Transport for London have anything to do with filming on Emirates? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's being referred to is the confusingly named Emirates Air Line (gondola lift) which is a cable car in London, not an airline. Valiantis (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something that creates a distraction to drivers on the road may not be covered in the Highway Code since the distraction may not be created by a driver but instead by someone who isn't on the road at all. That's kind of what I was getting at. Though, in this case, this does happen to be someone who is connected (quite literally) to a vehicle. Dismas|^(talk) 01:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Highway Code covers advice and the laws relating to pedestrians too, but I couldn't see anything. British pedestrians seem to be less heavily regulated than in other countries, there's no such thing as jaywalking here and there's no penalty (as far as I know) for crossing while the little red man is on. There's a rather vague offence of "obstruction" but a stern word from the police is the most likely penalty for any pedestrian misdemeanours. The bus in the video apparently had a police escort, so I doubt that any laws were broken. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]