Entertainment desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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 20[edit]

Ski wax[edit]

The Vancouver Olympics are being touted as 100% green. Is the wax used on the skis biodegradable? Woogee (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wax, by itself, is a natural substance. Hard telling what they put into ski wax, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Beeswax is natural. It is also biodegradable, which is what the question actually was. Paraffin wax is a petroleum product, and thus not 'natural' (for a given value of natural). Note that this does not tell us whether it was biodegradable, which was the question. Our article ski wax says that the waxes used can be a mix of all kinds of things, to fit the conditions, and it sounds like different manufacturers use different, proprietry mixes. The article also mentions the inclusion of surfactants and fluorocarbons, which adds to my impression that many (most?) ski waxes are not going to be green. The only way they could ensure all waxes used are green is by requiring certain mixes be used: I suspect the waxes are left to the teams, but would love some references. 86.182.38.255 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics are either "100% green" or they're not. But considering that they use electricity and heat, I would be very (and pleasantly) surprised if all the juice came from hydroelectric and solar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This official-looking press release,[1] which I found by googling ["winter olympics" green] appears to be more realistic, in that they are talking about minimizing environmental impact. If anyone said "100% green", I suspect what they're really saying is "as green as it realistically can be", which is not exactly the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% green = lack of snow. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! No, wait, fencing would be the summer Olympics. Unless it's snow fencing, of course. Er, never mind. --Anonymous (Canadian), 05:30 UTC, February 21, 2010.

Music in U.S. in the 1700s[edit]

Can someone help me find songs (or music in general) that were produced between 1700 and 1799 in the United States? I know Yankee Doodle already, but what else is out there? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone responding to this question might want to help fill out our article Timeline of musical events, which seems to be entirely bare of American events throughout the 1700s. 63.164.47.229 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of 18th century "Popular songs in American history". The compiler notes that "Most songs of the Colonial and Revoltionary [sic] Era were songs that originated in England, Scotland and Ireland and immigrated with their people." This site lets you listen to various tunes. It also states that most songs came from the immigrants' home countries. And here's a well-stocked timeline. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not looking for new music produced in that period but simply music popular then, you should consider including the British ballad traditions. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what it is[edit]

thumb|right|200px Please see the accompanied picture. It is from an American detective magazine. There is a thick red volume (book) attached to the wall on the right. What it is ? Jon Ascton (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On examining the picture at the fullest available resolution, my impression is that it's not an element original to the illustration, but rather has been superimposed, much as would be title and contents lettering, price, etc if the illustration (as seems not unlikely) has been used on the magazine's cover: it may even be a sticker, though this seems less likely as there is no evidence of wear or nicks on the item's edges. I would guess that it's a standard trademark or similar symbol used by the magazine's publisher, distributer or other trade-related body.

Unfortunately it's just too poorly resolved for me to be able to read the words on it, but no doubt someone more familiar with such publications, and hence possibly with the symbol if it is one, will be able to confirm or refute this. The artist's signature itself is also not quite readable unless one were already familiar with it - it may be "Carl Miller" or "Carl Muller", a name I'm not familiar with from, and which is not listed in what references I have for, paperback cover art, on which I'm a little more knowledgeable.

[Update] Might be Carl Mueller, on whom a Google search yields one hit on a not dissimilarly styled illustration from a not-incompatible era. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a not-unlinkable illustration that also has the same "book" on it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stout-SIT-1.jpg. And another - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stout-OMDB-2.jpg - in which it appears that the text says "An American[?] short mystery novel, complete in this book". --LarryMac | Talk 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A not-unuseful find, LarryMac. Apologies for my not-infrequent stylistic quirk of not-unexcessive tentativeness :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing, I hope you don't mind!. After doing the research on this question, what I mostly noticed is that we don't have an article on Mr. Mueller, who seems to have been somewhat prolific within his milieu. He even appeared in a LIFE magazine feature, referred to as "noted illustrator Carl Mueller." If he was notable enough for LIFE, surely he is notable enough for Wikipedia? --LarryMac | Talk 21:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He merited a New York Times obituary, so I guess so. Unfortunately, you have to pay to read it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's from The American Magazine (a frequest publsiher of Rex Stout) -- hence the phrase "American short mystery novel." "Complete in this issue" may have meant it wasn't to be serialized. However, Stout was known to expand his magazine novels when later publishing them as books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.71.200 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, pulp era magazines (I'm more familiar with SF and Fantasy than Mystery) frequently contained novels either serialised over two or more issues, or (if short) complete within a single issue. Purchasers who might not be in the habit of buying a particular magazine every month, or could not rely on being able to, would be annoyed at being left with an incomplete narrative, so the novel's being advertised as complete in that issue could avert such disappointment and be a positive selling point. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys ! That settles it. It is not part of the original picture. Fortunatly, as I found just now another, doublesized version is available on Wiki itself : here Jon Ascton (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, for any reason, you are interested in the stories, you can purchase them (without the little red book on the cover) from Amazon here. -- kainaw ™ 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Shutter Island plot[edit]

I want to avoid completely spoiling Shutter Island for myself, but before I decide if I want to see it, I'd like to know if it's one of those "it's all in his mind" things like these movies (spoilers hidden behind link). Thanks! -- Cyan (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the plot it sounds as though it's a "it's all in his mind" type of movie but I could've misunderstood it.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it definitely sounds like one of those movies to me. (On a side note, I thought spoiler warnings in articles were prohibited, or at least strongly discouraged. Is that still the case?) Xenon54 / talk / 01:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert's review gives a good appraisal of the movie without providing spoilers, although it does suggest the film has an unreliable narrator. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]