Entertainment desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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.

April 2[edit]

Lyrics[edit]

What are the lyrics that to a rock-disco song that has lyrics similar to "hey mony mony, mony mony ... I said "Hey" "Hey" "Hey" "Hey""?02:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.113.245 (talk)

That would be "Mony Mony". Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and here are the lyrics to the Billy Idol version. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that toward the end of the era where songs were padded out with nonsense words, as with "Be-Bop-A-Lula" and the like? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that practice continued for several decades longer. The Police's De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da came out in 1980, for example. Queen's Another One Bites The Dust came out in the same year, and had a long scat section in it. Korn's Freak on a Leash from 1999 has distinctive nonsense singing in it. Kid Rock released Bawitdaba in the same year. See Non-lexical vocables in music for a discussion over such words. I am pretty sure one could find songs from any era and genre that do that. --Jayron32 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mraz is still doing it in new songs today. Perhaps even as we speak... Staecker (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story I heard about "Mony Mony" is that the writer (?Tommy James?) saw, in lights on the side of a skyscraper, the words "Mutual Of New York". The initial letters were arranged in such a way as the word "Mony" was obvious, and it stuck in his mind and turned into a girl's name. So it's not unintelligible, nor is it scat singing, nor is it pure fill: it actually does make sense. There is a lot of fill in it, but Mony (itself) is not nonsense.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do Thomson and Thompson's shoes give them away?[edit]

Resolved

On page 9 in my edition of the Tintin album Land of Black Gold, Mac O'Connor sees Thompson's shoes and somehow that tells him that the latter is with the police. How does this make sense? Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he was wearing some standard police-issue shoes. That is, shoes normally worn with the uniform. If so, this would just be due to carelessness, as obviously undercover cops can wear different shoes. Also note that this dates back to 1939, during the Great Depression, and finding an additional pair of shoes, appropriate for the disguise, which fit, may not have been cheap. StuRat (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have seen the picture, but the thing is that the soles of Thompson's shoes are drawn with many small dots on them, which I presume are holes, and the thought balloon over O'Connor's head appears to indicate that these soles are what's relevant. It's kind of hard to believe that the soles of 1930s Belgian police shoes were different from those of all other shoes. Then again, maybe they weren't in reality and it's just a plot device that Herge needed. And yes, the word careless is a good epithet for Thomson and Thompson. Thank you for your reaction. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the soles are peppered with pits, that could indicate the wearer does a lot of walking on gravel, like a beat cop. Of course, many other people also do a lot of walking, like door-to-door salesmen. However, if the disguise was as somebody who wouldn't do much walking, like, say, a business executive, then that could give him away. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but (and I should have made this clearer) the holes are in a regular pattern; they are part of the design. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I guess we're back to them being standard police issue shoes. Perhaps they had a special pattern on the bottom so that detectives could eliminate the footprints of cops milling around a crime scene ? StuRat (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one actually. I don't know if investigators actually do that nowadays, but they might. Or maybe they did in 1930s Belgium at least. Thank you for that. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the holes look like this? Those are brogans. Our article is barely a stub, but brogans are stereotypically part of a policeman's wardrobe, due to their comfort and durability. I wouldn't have automatically made that leap, but perhaps that's what's going on. Matt Deres (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the story but I would have thought it was common knowledge that British policemen traditionally wore hobnail boots. I can't find an example now, but it's a well-used plotline for comic films and books, to have a cunning policeman's disguise given away by a large pair of police issue "hobnail boots". Although not used for decades, they are still a a byword in the UK for police heavy-handedness; this[1] 2009 article quotes: "This smacks of over-zealous policemen with little cultural understanding, tromping about the Tate in their hobnail boots, to the cultural deficit of society and this exhibition." Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the holes are just drawn as black dots, making it difficult to tell whether they are supposed to be holes or nails. The pattern looks a lot like in the picture on hobnail boots, so I'm leaning towards those. I wasn't aware that this plotline is very common, but it seems safe to say that, whether they are brogans or hobnail boots, we can consider this one resolved. Thank you all. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hobnails aside, the British policeman traditionally has a boot-size higher than his IQ. DuncanHill (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heartgold soulsilver starter pokemon[edit]

which heartgold soulsilver starter pokemon is the most offensive?Jds500 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I read Bulbapedia correctly (and I like to think I do - sorry for that Ocean's Eleven reference) Totodile has the highest Attack, but he also has the smallest Special Attack; it balances out pretty much. Is your question perhaps: "What's the best starter?" The arguably authoritative guide by CAHowell on www.gamefaqs.com says: "In this game, Cyndaquil is actually easy mode, Totodile is medium, and Chikorita is hard to use against the gyms (...)". Major Pokefan myself, so happy playing! 83.81.42.44 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The base stats for the starters are as follows:

Chikorita:

Attack: 49
Special Attack: 49
Total Attack: 98

Totodile

Attack: 65
Special Attack: 44
Total Attack: 109

Cyndaquil:

Attack: 52
Special Attack: 60
Total Attack: 112

So Cyndaquil is the most offensive overall, but Totodile has the highest single offensive stat. And Chikorita is the most offensive because of the awful smell. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, by the time they reach the final stage of evolution, Typhlosion (from Cyndaquil) has the highest single offensive stat, with 109 Special Attack, as well as the highest special attack/regular attack combined. Typhlosions's stats. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that stats are not the whole story; the actual moves factor in as well: Totodile starts with Scratch (power 40), the others with Tackle (35). The starter has no other damaging moves, so Special attack does not even matter. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buyover[edit]

The term "buyover", appears in the My Name Is Khan article. At first I thought this might be a typo for tunover, but maybe it is a different term used within Bollywood that I certainly have never heard of in thecontext of Hollywood or European film industries. So, what does "buyover" mean? Astronaut (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling on the word for other examples of its being used, most of them seem to mean "buyout". That fits the context in the cited article -- the rights to the film were bought for a billion rupees, which was an all-time record. And the OED 1st edition lists "buy over" as a phrasal verb meaning "to gain over by a payment or bribe", so that also fits. --Anonymous, 18:45 UTC, April 2, 2010.

Umm, maybe buyover should be created as a redirect to film rights, or something else? Astronaut (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a Music Categorization Question[edit]

is the brutality for a certain style of metal,or metal in general? based around the drums? I.E George Kollias from Nile,he plays up to 280BPM and my friend says that metal is based around the speed therefore making nile Brutal death metal,i disagree though and i hope you can give me an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.149.14 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music genre hair-splitting is mostly a fruitless exercise. If you lined up every popular musical artist of the past 50 years on a line based on any subjective musical criteria, you would get a subtle continuum along that criteria, without major breaks or easy ways to categorize them. Ultimately, what makes a band part of one genre or another lies in the ears of the beholder, and in the self-categorization of the band itself. There will be no "bright line" distinction between one genre and a very similar genre, so there's no way to say that one band is "Brutal death metal" while another is "Melodic death metal" or "technical death metal". Some bands will more clearly fit into one genre or another, others will straddle those line and fit comfortably in two or more categories. --Jayron32 21:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's pointless. Just think of Led Zeppelin, for example, usually categorised as heavy or classic rock. But listen to Gallows Pole or Hats off to Harper and then you will categorise them as folk rock or blues! Most decent rock bands defy categorisation. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that doesn't stop the talk pages for bands from overflowing with arguments about exactly which genre they are... Vimescarrot (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Match Reports (Soccer)[edit]

Is there anywhere on the internet where I can find match reports from the early days of the football league (for example the 1888-89 season). --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about them being on the internet, but if your search fails archived copies of newspapers from the time might contain match reports. Local papers for smaller games; national papers for the bigger games. Newspaper archives are often held by local libraries, local museums, or the newspapers themselves. Astronaut (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there are sites covering statistics from that era, I do not know of any site carrying match reports. Are you looking for information about a particular club? Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links may be of use. If you have a library card, you may well be able to access the Times Digital Archive and some other archive sites free of charge, try visiting the website of your local library for access details. However, in the late 19th Century most national newspapers did not cover football in any depth. Instead, there were dedicated sports newspapers such as Athletic News and the Football Field. If it is general information about the early days of the Football League you are looking for, I can recommend the book League Football and the Men Who Made It by Simon Inglis. It was published in the 1980s and is now out of print, but used copies are available for a modest amount through the likes of Amazon and Abebooks. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean from the UK? Google News Archives carries archived match reports from this time period, but most of them seem to be from New Zealand!--TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nursery rhyme songs[edit]

Which of the nursery rhyme songs that children knew fifty years ago do children know today? I am thinking of songs such as those based on poems in Category:Nursery rhymes. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience (Toronto, Canada), these ones are known to today's children: Ring Around The Rosy, Mary Had A Little Lamb, This Old Man, Baa Baa Black Sheep, Old King Cole, The Farmer In the Dell, The Grand Old Duke of York, Hey Diddle Diddle, Hickory Dickory Dock, Hush Little Baby, It's Raining It's Pouring, Itsy Bitsy Spider, Jack Be Nimble, Jack And Jill, Little Boy Blue, (but not Hot Cross Buns). I'm going to stop there. So I'd say most of the ones with songs. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird. I do Children's Storytime twice weekly at my library (I'm not a volunteer; it's actually my job) and I don't really do any of these classics. Yet they do seem to know most of these older ones. Of course, my community has a huge immigrant population that are non-native English speakers, so many of them only know what I teach them, which is none of these, so I suppose it depends on what community the kids are in. Aaronite (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 y.o., UK - in a quick skim, I recognized just over 60 of the ones at list of nursery rhymes. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the answer is "most of them". I'm sure that there are fashions in nursery rhymes as there are in most things, and the geographical spread of particular rhymes may be restricted or spotty; but one of the conclusions that can be drawn from the Opies' Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes and Lore and Language of Schoolchildren is that such things are in large part transmitted orally, often in the absence of any discernible adult instruction or print sources, and their persistence and rapid diffusion can be quite astonishing. Deor (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your answers. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]