Entertainment desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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 21

Colin Morgan

Where was Colin Morgan playing main roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.214.169 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could check out the Wikipedia article Colin Morgan, and from there, near the bottom, you can find a link to his article at the Intenet Movie Database which will have even more information. --Jayron32 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bonamassa wet jacket

I was at a Joe Bonamassa concert tonight. After about 3 songs I noticed that the back and shoulders of his jacket were wet. Does he sweat that much on stage? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All rock musicians sweat on stage; it can get pretty warm up there. Some of them use wind machines (I'd better not say big fans) positioned just off stage in an attempt to keep cool.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either he was sweating profusely on the back and shoulders, or I got to wondering if he had put water on his jacket to help keep cool. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility, but the electric stage lights generate a phenomenal amount of heat. If he had been wearing a different colour jacket, probably you wouldn't have noticed. By the way, I'm so jealous, one day I hope to see Joe in person myself! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking: if you get so hot then go without a jacket. The bass player started with one on but took it off. I saw him one other time last year. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the forum at his website and they think it is his sweat. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full House (TV Series) Name Origins

I was recently told that the TV series Full House was named after the hand in Poker, a Full house (poker). After some research I have been unable to confirm this. Does anybody know why the TV Series was called Full House, other than the fact that it was full of people? Thanks. TheGrimme (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious play on words. Creators of various media like to come up with eye-catching titles. Another similar example is Three's Company, which is obviously based on the old saying, "Two's company, three's a crowd." Another example would be Ironside (TV series), an obvious play on Old Ironsides. If it's hard to find sourcing for these things, it's because it's so obvious that there's no need to explain it. It would be like feeling the need to explain why the U.S. flag is called "the stars and stripes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs. I suppose the source of my confusion is that in cards, a full house is typically five cards. While, in Full House, there were (at the start of the show) six people living there. TheGrimme (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a full house in poker is 3 cards of one value and 2 of another. Perhaps, at some point in the development of the series, the concept was two people from one family and three from another, or perhaps the two unrelated men they ended up with and a family of three (instead of the 4 they ended up with). Or, parsed another way, perhaps it was 3 men and 2 girls, before they decided to add the baby. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things in pop culture don't necessarily stand up to close scrutiny or over-analysis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell game? Farewell match?

Doing research for this expression for the German Wikipedia (Abschiedsspiel), I'd like to ask:

Which term ist the "official" (?) English expression? [(a) last "real" match of a sportsperson (b) separate match organized only to honor that person].
In which sports are those games/matches played? Who decides?
Are there - beyond for individual players and even stadiums (before tearing them dowm) other "connections" to F.g./F.m. ?
Any other helpful remarks (things I overlooked)?

Thanks Grey Geezer 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

A match organised in honour of someone is a "testimonial". In football and rugby, they are unofficial matches and often organised between invitational teams. In cricket (at least in English cricket) players are awarded a testimonial year by the county, full of fund raising events with the money for those events going to the player concerned. This has historically been because "professional" cricket in England has been comparatively poorly rewarded. It's often not possible to say in advance at which match a player will retire, due to injuries. However, the cricketer Alec Stewart announced his retirement well in advance. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In cricket the term benefit year is used rather than "testimonial". --Viennese Waltz 06:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans tend not to have baseball, football or basketball matches. They're almost always games. Australians have a bit each way, sometimes one, sometimes the other. No rigid rule. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. There seems to be a "spectrum" of these last games in different ball sports (any comment on ice hockey?) from officially (by the association) organized games to games organized by clubs or even the player himself. Grey Geezer 07:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

In the NHL, the term used is alway "game", not match. --Xuxl (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Monk was an EPIC germaphobe - Then WHY didn't he have the Bidet-seats?

I finally saw Monk's bathroom in one episode - his toilet looked like the old-fashioned type. (The one that doesn't wash you like the Washlets do.)

That was, BAR NONE, the biggest plot hole I have EVER seen in my life!

You see, after you go mudding in your SUV, do you dry-wipe the mud off your SUV with a towel, or do you use a hose and some soap?

That is the same reason why Adrian Monk shouldn't have even been caught dead on a regular, 20th century toilet.

Why did the producers behind his show have to neglect such a critical feature for anybody with OCD/Germaphobia?

(I stay on there for 2-4 hours while I work on my laptop in order to get the best possible satisfaction out of it, whereas I had figured that Adrian Monk would have learned how to sleep upright.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I can see how you, as the internet's foremost promoter of washlets, would be disappointed to see that Monk didn't have one, this is not actually a plot hole since Monk's toilet design is not essential to the story's outcome. Card Zero (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the undeniably intelligent Monk understands better than you do about the efficacy or otherwise of bidets as against dry wiping. We have evolved for many millions of years to coexist with anally-derived bacteria in the immediate area of the anus. Wiping with dry paper removes most of them (and all of the visible matter, if you're doing it right) and keeps them localised; splashing them and it with water invisibly spreads them and it much wider.^{[citation needed]} {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.149 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ever go mudding in your truck/SUV and attempt to dry-wipe the mud with a towel? How clean does that make your truck as opposed to using hoses and soap? (Yes, some higher-end bidet-seats also squirt soap.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ever try spilling bean-paste (or mustard, BBQ sauce, etc.) on a countertop, and then dry-wiping it with a paper towel? Does it seem as clean as spraying it with a counter-cleaning spray first, then wiping said area? --70.179.174.101 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the counter-cleaning spray likely contains bleach, or at least ammonia, to kill the germs. Spraying that up your butt would be painful. So, if you ask whether the counter is cleaner if you use paper towels or spray with water and let it drip off, I'd go with the paper towels every time. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't always need to use bleach to clean counters; sometimes water alone will clean them off; it depends on what needs to be cleaned off. You're incongruentizing my analogy; bleach is to countertops as soap is to skin. There are soap dispensers on higher-end bidet-seats. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't kill the bacteria with bleach, ammonia, or alcohol, you're risking spreading disease into foods you prepare on the counter. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, I suspect that the makers of the show probably do not want the audience to think about Tony Shalhoub's toilet habits and therefore do not give it any significance in the script. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monk was evidently aware of the Mythbusters testing which confirmed that "many objects that people touch every day are dirtier than a toilet seat." Also, he no doubt cleaned his so thoroughly and regularly that you could perform surgery on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether such germs exist, or even how many of them there are, or how "dirty" something is, but whether such germs represent a pathological danger to humans. --Jayron32 03:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ever go mudding in your truck/SUV and attempt to dry-wipe the mud with a towel? How clean does that make your truck as opposed to using hoses and soap? (Yes, some higher-end bidet-seats also squirt soap.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after overly much pondering, I've come up with this explanation. Presumably the house was the same one he lived in when his wife Trudy was alive. When she was killed, he went to pieces and required extensive therapy, leaving him too preoccupied to consider the "necessity" of a bidet. By the time he had become stable (if that's a word you could apply to Monk), he had a set routine, which he would not want to disrupt. Also, he might want to keep the house as much like it was when Trudy lived there. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword the first Zelda for Everyone? Objection!

There are articles that say that Eiji Aonuma said that The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword is the first Zelda for everyone. But that can not be true because most The Legend of Zelda Games are rated A all ages in Japan. That mean anyone can play it even young children. Even a six year old kid can beat any of these games if their very good at playing video games. Does this man even know that the CERO exist? Does he think the letter A mean teenager of adult only? The games that are rated A all ages are the first The Legend of Zelda,Zelda II:The Adventure of Link,The Legend of Zelda:A Link to the Past,The Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time and it 3DS remake,The Legend of Zelda:Majora's Mask,The Legend of Zelda:Four Sword,The Legend of Zelda:The Wind Waker,The Legend of Zelda:Four Sword Adventures,The Legend of Zelda:The Minish Cap,The Legend of Zelda:Phantom HourGlass, The Legend of Zelda:Spirit Track and The Legend of Zelda:Skyward Sword. The ones that rated rated A all ages are The Legend of Zelda:Link's Awakening and The Legend of Zelda:Twilight Princess.They are both rated B 12 and up. The unknown one is The Legend of Zelda:Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Is this all false information? Was it a mistranslation? I know you should not believe everything on the Internet. Please Anwser me. I want to know everything.69.131.127.250 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it: I'd would answer you, but you can't believe everything on the internet. Mingmingla (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess. I've not played the more recent games, but some older Zelda games required reading lots of text to understand what you have to do, and so probably weren't suitable for very young children (some of them were also really difficult, and may not have been suitable for young children in that way). The rating of a game (A, etc) may focus more on the lack of adult references, sex, violence, bad language, than on whether it's easy for children to play (though ratings systems differ). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helping me. A six year old can beat these games if he or her try hard. I need someone who play Zelda all since he or she was a young child.69.131.127.25 (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you've never received a good answer to your questions about Nintendo games in all the months you've been asking. Perhaps you might do better searching in some other kind of forum. Maybe the nintendo tech forums would help: http://techforums.nintendo.com/index.jspa Mingmingla (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I played all the classic Zelda games around the time they came out, the first one when I was about 8. It was too hard and too complicated for me to play and I just didn't understand it enough to enjoy anything. After about 2 years I played it through and really liked it. So I'd say at least that the first Zelda wasn't great for little kids. I'd say that Adventure of Link was way too hard for kids too. Staecker (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]