How can I get a new picture to replace the one you're currently using for an actress? Thanks, Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.236.163 (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You take your camera, snap a photograph of the actress in question, then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. There are other methods available, but that is the one which is the simplest in terms of the rules Wikipedia has in place for uploading photos. --Jayron32 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users aren't allowed to upload pictures either to Wikimedia Commons or to Wikipedia; you need to register an account. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most good photos have copyright restrictions on them, not allowing us to use them. A smart agent will release at least a few high quality pics to the public domain, to ensure that their client gets more free publicity. StuRat (talk)

You might wish to ask this at the Help desk where more people hang around who specialize in the wikipedia-how-tos and -where-tos. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is this line from Grease: "Well, she was good you know what I mean". My interpretation is that the two main characters had sex. But then, the movie's published in 1978, and assuming that the setting is contemporary of that time, that'd put the characters in the Baby Boom generation. What were American cultural attitudes in regards to hetersexual unmarried sex in the late '70s? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was not set in the 70's, but in the 1950's.

2) At that time a girl who had premarital sex was considered to be immoral, except in some peer groups. A boy who had premarital sex was admired. Quite the double standard.

3) Just because a boy implied that they had sex doesn't mean it was true. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, if a boy does not want to cause trouble for non-prostitute women, he may have sex with prostitutes instead? Could teenagers pay for prostitute services with or without adult supervision? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not legally, in most places in the US. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a boy actually to say that he had sex with a girl was considered a low-class thing to do. This created an opportunity for someone like Danny, because he could lead his friends to think that he had sex with Sandy without actually saying so. In actuality, they have only kissed, and this is the only concrete thing he claimed to have done ("made out under the dock"). Now, if Sandy were to accuse him of "kissing and telling," he could say he had done no such thing (literal kissing and telling being acceptable). Of course, his friends, or at least the smarter ones, know the rules too, and that Danny has deliberately left them in a state of uncertainty as to whether he and Sandy had sex or not. John M Baker (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, it's the 1950s way of saying: "Shut up. It's none of your business." 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he welcomed the opportunity to imply he had sex with her, without actually saying so. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though, any state of uncertainty on this matter, if it had occurred during the Victorian era, would count as "Yep. They had sex," unless it's paired up with evidence and a defiant "No." 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film and play actually deals explicitly with the problem of premarital sex, by contrasting the characters of Sandy and Rizzo. It's rather clear that Rizzo is willing to have sex, while Sandy is not. This difference is made overt in the number "Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee" and its later reprise when Rizzo believes herself to be pregnant. --Jayron32 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film down played the sexual content a great deal, which is why the OP is a little confused but if you have seen the original stage production...its a little raunchy.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film was a little less raunchy, but only a little (IIRC, the song "Greased Lightning" altered the lyrics from "the girl's will cream" to "the girl's will scream" for example), but there's enough innuendo even in the film to make it plain that Rizzo puts out. And she does make it clear that she believes she is pregnant and later finds out she's not. Audiences that don't know how pregnancy happens probably have a lot more of Wikipedia to read before coming here to ask any question. --Jayron32 19:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, people in the 1950s had unprotected sex. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we're all here today, I would hope so. Otherwise there'd be lots of virgin births that would need some theological explaining. --Jayron32 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People in the 2010s do as well. It's not like 1960 arrived and everyone started using protection for their premarital sex. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The common thread is denial and ignorance. As in, "It couldn't hurt to do it just once." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget ... the film-makers probably wanted to insure a "PG" film rating (as opposed to an "R"), in order to gain a wider audience (i.e., young teenagers under the age of 17). So, they probably had to "clean it up" a bit and perhaps leave some of the cruder content to be hidden between the lines. A theatrical production does not have the same concerns or constraints, generally speaking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently given The New Beatles Top 40 Pop Song Book (circa 1970), containing sheet music (piano with guitar chords) for forty songs, most of which are familiar; a couple of them are unknown to me but now I learn that they were recorded by Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers before they were THE BEATLES, viz "Take Out Some Insurance on Me, Baby" and "Why".

Here also is "Good Golly Miss Molly". What has that to do with the Beatles? —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any recording, just hints that they may have performed GGMM in their early live days (see here, for one example). Dominic Pedler calls it "another early live staple" in his book The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. The film Backbeat has them performing it, and so does the stage version, from what I gathered. And, of course, they loved Little Richard. Is "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" (see article for why I'm asking) in the same songbook? ---Sluzzelin talk 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Richard was an early source of material for the Beatles. Anthology 1 contains recordings of "Long Tall Sally" and "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey!" as well. Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962 has the same two Little Richard songs. --Jayron32 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Dizzy" is in the book; I didn't ask about it because it's on Help!. (Jayron's two songs are not in the book.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought DML might not be in the song book because of its similarity to Miss Molly. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hour (or minute), I mean. Tricky thing to Google, and I'm not seeing it in the first few stories I checked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

This may never be released. It is not the kind of general information that is stated in sources and the family may have requested these details not be announced.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's reported. Or at least the pronounced dead time. Whitney Houston was 3:55 pm. Michael Jackson 2:26 pm. But yeah, sometimes isn't always. As it stands. the time the news broke fits better into my harebrained "coincidence?" theory, anyway. Maybe for the best. RIP. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

Those were deaths by misadventure investigated by the coroner given the age of the decedents and the circumstances. Coroner's reports are public records available unless sealed. A coroner won't necessarily investigate the obvious death by natural causes of people over a certain age. That will depend on local law (in some places all deaths, or all deaths under a certain age are investigated) and the coroner's or DA's discretion. Of the few death certificates I have read, all but one (for a twenty-year old) gave approximate hour of death. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the time isn't always given by a coroner. Sometimes it's in statements or tweets from family or friends. I grew up as a reader in a funeral home, and remember being annoyed by the "hour" field and lack of a colon (ours were similar to Jimmy "1105" Stewart's). Used to think it was sure to lead some people to round to the literal hour, and now you've confirmed my (mild) fears. You've also indirectly raised another question for me, which I will ask below. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

If the tabloids are to be believed, there appears to be the start of a big squabble in the family, and it's possible the exact time and cause of death will be among the issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be macabre, but I hope so. Speaking of reported times and coincidences, The Ultimate Warrior died around 5:50 pm, the day after returning to Raw, following 18 years away. Three days prior, he went into their Hall of Fame alongside the deceased Paul Bearer, manager of The Undertaker. In the same hour The Undertaker's record winning streak was broken (along with his head]), news broke of Rooney's record streak breaking. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Three Xs in WrestleMania XXX. Three dead people. 18 year hiatus for Warrior. At WrestleMania X-8, Undertaker beat the former leader of The Four Horsemen. The third horse of the older Four is like The Black Stallion. The fourth horse, of course, is pale. 18 + 3 = 21. 21 wins for the Undertaker, over 23 years. 93 - 23 = 7 decades. At WrestleMania VII, the streak began. A decade later, Taker beat Triple H. 7 x 3 = 21. Rooney was 21 when he first married. Jake Roberts (who also went into the Hall that night, and famously buried Warrior for Taker) became somewhat infamous for his drunken "You wanna play 21?" interview. Finally, the Third Horseman appears in Revelations 6:5-6. Roberts had a snake named Revelations, the Hall of Fame ceremony was on the 5th, and WrestleMania XXX on the 6th. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I am trying to find out what ever has happened to the actor David Gordon whom stars in the music video by Heart performing 'All I Wanna Do Is Make Love To You'. which came out in March, 1990. I believe his name is David Gordon but can't find any information about this actor. He is also in Elton John music video 'You Got To Love Someone'.

Thank you for your help.

Kerry Piasecki Mount Isa Queensland ♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.44.223 (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding anything but other similar questions posed to Wikianswers. There are several variations to the name David Gordon but there is only one listed on IMDB, however, this actor's earliest credit is 1993. I wonder if Wikianswers got that right, After all it was just someone claiming they recognized the performer. I'll keep looking and putting out some "feelers".--Mark Miller (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m trying to find information about a music video I saw in the early ’90; but it could be originally aired in the ’80. If my childhood memory serves me well, it featured a woman (the singer?) wandering in a sort of tavern reminiscent of the Star Wars Cantina, just like the one showed in the Billy Ocean's Loverboy music video. I distinctly remember a group of people around a table playing a strange game, a sort of mahjong whose pieces were rectangular parallelepipeds with dots on their lateral faces. I think a fighting erupted because someone cheated but I don’t recall much of it. At the end of the video it was implied that it was all a dream his woman had, but in the very final scene she was displayed lying on a beach than the camera zoomed in to show her hand twiddling with a piece of that game. Anyone remember what this video was or at least to have seen it? 82.49.200.113 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the "rectangular parallelepipeds with dots on their lateral faces" have been Dominoes? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, albeit they might be inspired by it. To clarify, each one of the 4 lateral faces was marked by a number of dots. It was a fictional game; just to add flavor to the sci-fi/fantasy setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.200.113 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some mahjong tiles have dots on them. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, anyway I'm familiar with (and played in my youth) both games. That depicted in the video was clearly a fictional game, with fictional pieces. I saw that music video here in Italy; unfortunately after such long time I don't remember even the music genre. My speculation is that she was an obscure female singer from the '80 who briefly enjoyed some degree of success with that song - for which the music video was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.200.113 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long shot, but you might get some use out of list of fictional games, or list of music videos or Italian_popular_music. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure if this is a good place to ask, but I'm trying to figure out the title of a film that was in Mandarin Chinese. It was probably before 2006 (I think I saw it in 2006 or 2007 at the latest on VCD) and involved four siblings who'd be separated for some reason. One of them is adopted by some Westerners and ends up becoming a conductor (or possibly some sort of classical musician). She travels back to China for a performance during the non-flashback portions of the film, and the siblings reunite at the end of it. Morningcrow (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Roots and Branches", released in 2001, starring Gigi Leung. I found some information on it here: http://www.nextjourney.org/Dianying/dianying.html

OttawaAC (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the funnier lines from Spaced Invaders. Googling it gets me only the TV Tropes page for it. Having never watched a single Star Wars movie, I see I may have missed the funniest part altogether. I can't figure out what the allusion/shout out means through Google. Something about decimals...probably. Help?

Han Solo in at least one of the film (though it may have been more - it has been a few years since I screened them) says "Never tell me the odds." I feel sure other editors will be able to tell you which film and at what point in that film that the lines are spoken. MarnetteD | Talk 04:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "little gray cells" just remembered that he delivers the line to C3PO but they haven't come up with the film yet. MarnetteD | Talk 04:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Empire Strikes Back. Here it is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks! The Invaders line came while the ship was failing. One guy kept relaying all these vital stats, like velocity, angle, whatever. All the math exasperated the pilot. Other than that moment and the duck, not a great movie. This Star Wars clip is the second longest I've seen from the franchise (after the Vader battle). Looks decent. Still don't think I'll watch any full ones, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

In the original Star Trek, Spock was always giving an absurd number of significant digits, obviously well beyond the accuracy you could really get, due to error stack up. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need help fast. I'm involved in a debate on another site and I need to come up with a couple of songs about donkeys. My mind's a blank at the moment. Thanks a million.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Donkey, Donkey Riding, Dominick the Donkey, Cranky Doodle Donkey, Donkey Serenade, The Wonkey Donkey.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Donkey Serenade". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Allan Jones singing it for Jeanette McDonald.[1] Never mind that they're confusing mules with donkeys, and that nearly the whole thing was shot in a studio with rear projection screens, except for a few fleeting outdoors shots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could list the songs in that video, so we don't all have to watch it to determine which ones were already listed. In my case, I can't even play videos on the old Windows 98 PC I'm using at the moment. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If mules are acceptable, the folk song "The Old Grey Mare, She Ain't What She Used To Be" sometimes uses "Mule" in place of "Mare". StuRat (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google [songs about donkeys] and there are a number of hits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Hoty? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

jackass ... ---Sluzzelin talk 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty funny song about donkeys was inspired by a really poor piece of branding by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. At the time it made quite a splash in the advertising world. See here. --Dweller (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Bridge (song) mentions Sal a mule hauling barges on the Erie Canal. This is often a clue and answer in crossword puzzles. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mules are not donkeys. But if you're including them, there's "Mule Train", a hit for Frankie Laine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my mistake. Thanks for mentioning the Frankie Laine song. Sang that one a time or two in my honky tonk days last century :-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Purple had "The Mule", but it wasn't about donkeys or mules. Here is a song by a lonely donkey, about one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

And Donkey Riding isn't about donkeys, but I didn't know that until now.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mules are half donkeys, so those songs are half of what the OP is looking for... --Jayron32 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G K Chesterton wrote a poem, The Donkey, which I see was set to music by Gregory Short, part of “Silver Moon” Cycle of Seven Songs for Tenor and Piano. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently getting airplay on a number of country stations is the simply titled "Donkey" from Jerrod Niemann. --McDoobAU93 17:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Boleyn, you can see and hear Hughes Aufray singing Le Petit Âne gris at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km4hdtZ7Iyg (2:53). Unfortunately, his voice has a vocal fry. The lyrics are at http://en.lyrics-copy.com/hugues-aufray/le-petit-ane-gris.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request reminds me of Matthew 21:5, in reference to Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit tangential (and far too late), but there's also the band Gov't Mule. They had an instrumental named "Birth of the Mule". Like any instrumental, we're free to interpret it as about a donkey. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

What did Gordon Lightfoot mean by "I'll walk away like a movie star who gets burned in a three-way script"? —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always taken that to mean that a screenplay written "by committee" (3 people, in this case) tends to be rather poor quality, and a movie star working off such a script is likely to have a flop of a movie, and thus suffer damage to their reputation, career, and future salary. So, it means "I'll leave as quickly as a movie star who faces the prospect of performing to a poorly written script". StuRat (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line refers to the odd man out in a love triangle. This is reinforced by the next line, which describes "number two" as a "movie queen". - Eron^Talk 17:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(your link isn't working for me, not sure if typo, or the content went down) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, fixed, thanks to Bus Stop for the additional correct link below. - Eron^Talk 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to lyrics. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the love triangle possibility, but our article says the song is partly about his own infidelities, so he's not the one "burned". —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably still true. Poetic license and all. Mingmingla (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like that.... When was this gag performed for the first times in the movies? GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer for you, just a guess...very early short silent films often featured vaudeville performers doing popular stage tricks, so it wouldn't surprise me if it would've first appeared in that format. If you go to http://www.open-video.org/index.php and do a search for "vaudeville" you can see similar gags and tricks on film. OttawaAC (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes has a whole entry on "In One Ear, Out The Other", but the only handkerchief example they mention is the one you already gave (Lloyd Bridges in Hot Shots!). For earlier non-handkerchief examples it has "Happens a few times in The Three Stooges. For example, in one episode Moe throws a feather duster through Shemp's ears and has to help him pull it out". I found another example in They Stooge to Conga involving a screwdriver in one ear and a light bulb in the other, but I found no Stooges scene using a hanky. TV Tropes also gives the example of Delusions of Grandeur (film) (1971), but that scene uses a towel, not a hanky. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Humming.ogg

Hello, I've heard a song that is like that in the chorus, unfortunately, I don't know the lyrics of this song. What is the title of this song please ? Fort123 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. Can you narrow it down at all? New song, old song, in between? Woman or man singing? Genre? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, April 11, 2014 (UTC)

This song is in F♯ major. Fort123 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cher - Believe (Cher song) (queued up on youtube) --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ! Fort123 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great use of audio. Was instantly recognizable to me too :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it's extremely obvious to me, too, and I can't see how I didn't hear it before. One of those things. Thanks, Rhodo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

It's my impression that in my lifetime of over 60 years there been a change in the most popular sport in the US, from baseball to football (the American kind). Firstly, am I right?, Secondly, if true, how and why did it happen? HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes (at least within the last 30 years). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a LOT of analysis tied to this; the big difference has been tied to American Football as a TV friendly, while Baseball is a radio-friendly sport. See this article which has a pretty good overview of why American Football works so well on TV. I can't remember where I first read that analysis, but it has been made by numerous sports writers and historians. I think it was probably someone like David Halberstam, he wrote an important book about the 1958 NFL Championship Game, which has been called "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and with good reason. It was the first NFL Championship Game that was broadcast nationally by a major TV network, AND it just happens to be one of the most exciting games every played as well; being the only NFL Championship to go into sudden death overtime. The 1960s was the decade where the NFL really blossomed. A second league was formed (the American Football League) and was successful enough to force a merger. Now, I did most of the work to bring History of American football to featured status, so I hope you won't mind if I add some personal observations and speculation as to what made football supreme in the U.S. Color television was becoming a thing in the 1960s; that really made the colorful football uniforms pop and gave visual interest to the game. Baseball uniforms were basically two colors: Gray and White. The flow of the games are different, which makes football work on TV so well: Football consists of short bursts of action (5-6 second plays) with about 20-30 seconds for analysis by the sportscasters. It's fairly rhythmic in that way: play-break-play-break-play-break. The pacing is perfect for keeping a television viewer glued to the set. Baseball is much more leisurely; there can be 10-20 minutes between a ball being put into play, good for listening in on radio while you do other stuff, not so good for keeping eyeballs on TV sets. The NFL has done a good job using its labor contract to maintain league parity: There's not really an advantage to being in a major metro area; teams have national followings regardless of where they are, and a team from small town like Green Bay, Wisconsin can still compete every year for a championship. MLB still offers HUGE benefits for being from a major metro area. You've maybe got 4 teams that are "in it" every year, and then a random number of small market teams occasionally make a run for a year or two. In the NFL, no team is terrible forever, and you've got more teams that have a shot every year so fans of all teams feel more connected for a longer time. Also, season length has something to do with it. MLB has 162 games in a season; they play almost every day. That decreases the interest in any one single game. Unless its a major rivalry like Red Sox-Yankees, no one needs to watch every game, because any individual loss or win doesn't mean much. The NFL plays 16 games in a season, essentially all on the same day of the week (Sunday) with a featured game on other nights (one on Thursday, on on Monday). Every game makes a difference, so every game matters for the fans. While a mid-season Royals-Astros game in Baseball means absolutely nothing to most baseball fans (even to Royals and Astros fans), a midseason game between the Chiefs and the Texans could mean the difference between either team making the playoffs or not, so it's still likely to attract considerable interest. And that's my belief in why football has become supreme: TV. --Jayron32 13:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of live attendance, MLB still wins with almost 75 million tickets sold in 2012 versus 17 million for NFL.[2][3] with baseball attendance setting records but football attendance declining slightly. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divide the baseball numbers by 10 to get the real figures. Baseball teams play 81 home games per year. NFL teams play 8. That means, on a per-game basis, Baseball games have less than half the attendance of NFL games. You'll note your source is MLB.com; that source has a vested interest in making their numbers look better. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, my friend. --Jayron32 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR is pretty popular too. About the NFL, I recall Howard Cosell talking in the late 60s or so about how it seemed to fit (more than baseball) with the America of that time: action-packed, violent, etc. The violent side has come under much closer scrutiny in recent years, but the NFL remains at the top of the popularity list. And you're right, the NFL (or football in general) is perfect for TV. Baseball is better on the radio, or in person, where you can chat with others or wander around without much fear of missing something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, here's some less filtered numbers, which aren't interpreted to make baseball look better: here is baseball's number, and here is the NFL numbers, both by ESPN. There are 3 sets of numbers: total attendance, average attendance per game, and "pct" which is the average percent of "capacity" (i.e. tickets sold divided by number of seats) for each team in both sports. Here's the relevant comparables:

1. In the NFL, 11 of the 32 teams averaged 100% attendance or better (more than 100% means that there would have been standing-room-only) in home games. In MLB, none of the teams averaged 100% attendance or better. The closest was the SF Giants, who got 99%. The median percentage of seats sold was 73%. In the NFL, the median was 98.9%. No team in the NFL averaged less than 80% capacity. In baseball, only 8 teams did better than that.
2. In the NFL, every team averages per-game attendance was better than every single MLB team. That is, the best attended home team in MLB was the LA Dodgers, with 46,216 per game. The worst attended home team in the NFL was the Oakland Raiders, with 50,444 per game.
3. If you want a real apples-to-apples comparison, the Oakland Raiders (football) and Oakland A's (baseball) play in the same stadium (the last such team to do so; it used to be more common for teams to share a stadium, but currently that's the only two teams to do so now). In the same stadium, the Raiders average 50,444 per game. The A's average 22,337 per game.

There you go. NFL numbers have plateaued recently (or even slightly declined) largely because the league has already been essentially at capacity for a long time. When just under half of your teams literally sell out every single game, it doesn't take much to drop a bit. Baseball, OTOH, has lots of games with half-filled (or barely filled) stadiums. They have a lot more room to go up than the NFL does. The NFL would have to literally reconstruct their stadiums to sell more tickets. Baseball just has to find ways to fill the seats that are regularly empty, and there's a lot of them. --Jayron32 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about per event attendance and am puzzled by your fixation on only it as a valid statistic. NASCAR per event attendance [4] far exceeds football but does not not approach capacity, or football's (much less baseball's) season totals. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best estimator of a given sport's popularity might be the total revenues taken in, not just from attendance, but also from product licensing, TV contracts, and whatever else one can think of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you want to know what America's most popular sport is, you ask people: Harris Interactive poll shows a longitudinal study of the most popular sports in the U.S. Baseball has seen the biggest decline, losing 7% of it's support as someones "favorite sport", while the NFL has had the biggest gain, with Pro Football seeing 10% increase. Other sports have remained relatively constant, losing or gaining less than 3% of their popularity over that time frame. --Jayron32 20:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website where I can get the soundtrack of Death in Paradise, all seasons 1, 2, and 3? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.60 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine who plays and writes for the guitar is curious is there is any significant difference in composing for the two instruments. That one bends notes and plays with a slide on the guitar seems relevant. I'd also assume there are no two-handed compositions for guitar. But I am actually almost entirely ignorant, and neither read music nor play an instrument myself. Can anyone point out if there are differences I am missing and any good articles or references to recommend? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, but still an interesting point; there is certainly piano-style two handed playing of guitars. Two handed tapping allows for the playing of keyboard music on guitars. Fgf10 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For players who play fantastic 2-handed guitar (that is, fretting and striking notes with both hands) check out Ben Lapps or Zack Kim. Also, while it is strictly true that you can't bend the notes on an acoustic piano, electronic keyboards are surprisingly versatile in allowing such note bending. Many high-end synthesizers such as the Yamaha Motif have nobs and such that produce a pretty good facsimile of guitar note-bending. --Jayron32 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Medeis, some of these discussion forums may have some good info for you: [5]. --Jayron32 23:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, one question. In two-handed piano playing does anyone ever play more than six notes at a time? I assume that would be the limit on a six-stringed guitar? Like I said, I am personally quite ignorant here. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A piano player can play 10 notes at once. And guitars can play more than 6 notes if they have more than 6 strings. See Russian guitar. --Jayron32 02:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall that Tom Lehrer referred to his piano as an "88-string guitar". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, for one song (The Folk Song Army) he invited his audience to "pretend that I am playing an 88-string guitar." —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, most piano players can play 12 notes at once. The thumbs can easily play 2 notes each, and depending on the shape of the thumb, may even be able to play 3 each, making 14 notes in all. But very little music ever calls for such dexterity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking, piano players usually also have forearms and elbows and the like, and can probably play dozens of notes at once. To do so in a sonicly pleasing way, however, is the trick... --Jayron32 03:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But being required to play 6 notes with one hand is far from uncommon, particularly in music by Romantic composers such as Liszt, Scriabin and Rachmaninoff. Scriabin went a bit weird in later life but the other two always inhabited the world of sonic pleasure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I will be referring to the six-stringed modern classical guitar and the way it is played in classical music, not to guitars with more strings, or two-hand tapping)

You already mentioned that you can change a note's pitch on a guitar (and also modulate the sound, add a vibrato etc) which you can't do on the discretely tuned piano, yet in terms of melodic and harmonic possibilities, composing for the piano is less restrictive than for the guitar. Compared to the violin, say, the guitar does allow for more harmony and polyphony. Skilled players (which is whom a composer is often composing for) can play counterpoint, self accompaniment, and so forth, but the guitar still allows for less of all that than the piano. One of the reasons being the hands and fingers employed, as mentioned above. In addition less simultaneous combinations are possible on the guitar. The way the strings are laid out and especially their limited number (six) in combination with the physical limits of what hands can do, even make certain constellations of six or less notes impossible to play in standard tuning. (For a very simple example: You cannot play the minor third e^I-g^I (only two notes) as a harmonic interval, because both of those notes can only be played on the lowest strings (but not simultaneously) Then again, on a guitar you can play two notes in unison, something the piano can't).

On the piano too, of course, not every constellation of ten (or twelve or whatever) notes is possible. There are even constellations of only three notes that can't be played simultaneously on the piano (unless you use your nose or chin). But this is only because of the limits of the human being, not of the instrument. A player piano can play the works of Conlon Nancarrow or anything written for the 88 keys, a human being can't, but nor could a "player guitar". All in all, the piano allows for many more possibilities in terms of polyphony.

The article on classical guitar repertoire starts out with "To a greater extent than most other instruments and ensembles, it is difficult to compose music for the guitar without either proficiency in the instrument or close collaboration with a guitarist. As a result, a large part of the guitar repertoire consists of works by guitarists who did not compose extensively for other instruments." This is a sentiment often heard among classical guitarists. I personally believe that one of the reasons is the history of negligence of classical guitar in the tradition of conservatories, which probably lingers on to this day. The vast majority of students of composition can play the piano (whether as a first instrument or not, they'll know their way around the instrument), but only very few play the guitar. In classes, more emphasis is placed on members of the symphony orchestra, maybe some other instruments such as the organ too, but not that much, if anything at all, on the guitar. (This is a very general statement. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatories that include the guitar in their teaching about instruments and instrumentation, and times are changing and have changed).

Because the guitar does allow for astonishing harmonic complexity in comparison to most solo instruments (just not the piano), and because this is something composers might wish to exploit, the suggested lack of knowledge and practice (in comparison to their familiarity with the piano) would make it quite a challenge, even with the help of a guitarist. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the problems you note with the Guitar not also applicable to other instruments, except moreso? Other stringed instruments used in the classical repertoire including the violin family have only 4 strings; their limits are identical to that of the guitar excepting they have less of a range. No, my suspicion as to the lack of attention to the guitar among classical composers (which established the tradition and thus it carries forward to this day as the way standard "orchestra" composing works) has to do with the type of music that guitars were originally suited for. Classical gut-strung guitars were and relatively quiet instruments. Like lutes and other predecessors, guitars were well suited for intimate settings: a small room with a few people listening in. They just weren't "concert hall" instruments. Instruments for the concert hall had to either be able to fill the hall themselves (big, brassy wind instruments, pianofortes, etc.) or have the ability to play a large group of them to reinforce their volume (violin sections). There's just no place for a guitar among the tradition of composing for the classical concert hall. Modern developments in the guitar (such as the introduction of steel strings and larger and larger body types such as the Dreadnought, and of course, electric amplification and electronic signal processing) have made the guitar a MUCH more versatile instrument in modern times. And of course, LOTS of people do compose for the guitar, just not in the "classical orchestra" frame. There's libraries of guitar music out there, written by excellent modern composers. --Jayron32 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The variety of four-handed and even six-handed compositions playable on a single piano notably exceeds any polyphony possible on a guitar. In an orchestra, string instruments such as guitars must generally be manually retuned by their players to agree in pitch with the available piano for which any tuning is a major operation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the word lady on Bir Kelime Bir İşlem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.194.156 (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be Yeliz Doğramacılar. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come Canadiens/Montreal/Quebec are more successful then their Maple Leafs/Toronto/Ontario counterparts are though out their histories?

I for one I'm really interested in knowing more about it for quite some time now.