Entertainment desk
< November 23	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 24[edit]

The Simpsons Adult Genre[edit]

matter for talk page or ANI

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There were edits notified by AmericanDad86 and Grapesoda22, who has kept re-adding the Adult Animation genre on it. The shows ratings are mainly TV-PG, so there is no way that the show could only be watched by adults. I am currently asking should the genre that I have said should be removed, as when I looked at the reference that the first user putted, it describes a book that was written in 1994, but not that kind of attempt to be released by the creator of the show nor the airing network, Fox, as the authors of the book are Frank Hoffmann, and Beulah B. Ramirez, in which I'm stating that the reference is not reliable to be accepted as the source is from the searching website, Google, in which was originally searched by the first user I mentioned. Blurred Lines 03:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Way to blow a petty issue out of proportion and distort the entire story, BlurredLines. To correct the above, BlurredLines was edit warring against two other editors at The Simpsons article. These editors are User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda22 (as shown here [1], here [2], here [3] and here [4]). Ironically, BlurredLines would then follow this up with a barrage of warnings for disruptive edits at these other editors (as shown here [5], here[6], here [7], here [8]). Mind you, all this is in despite of the fact that it is BlurredLines who is the one edit warring against everybody (as shown here at The Simpsons article history [9]). After being witness to all BlurredLines' petty edit warring, I then stepped in as liaison with a source to resolve the matter As shown by this source[10], The Simpsons is not only an adult cartoon, but it's also a show that led the entire wave of adult cartoons. And there are more sources where that came from to stating the same thing. When I incorporated my source and cautioned BlurredLines about his edit warring, he accused me of showing bad faith (as shown here at my talk page [11]). Clearly, this editor has issues with edit warring and article ownership. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ref Desk isn't the appropriate place to address this. I suggest discussion on the article talk page or, in the event that fails to curb the edit war, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its reality "tame" by today's standards doesn't mean its not catered to adults. It still airs on an adult network with other adult shows (your not gonna tell me Family Guy and American Dad aren't adult animation). Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The classic WB cartoons were catered to adults as well. And Rocky and Bullwinkle certainly contained a lot of jokes that would be over the heads of young'uns. "Adult" is a euphemism for "X-rated". These are not X-rated, and in fact they air in the early evening. Rather than debating what genre it belongs in (which is strictly a matter of opinion), how about simply posting the show's TV-rating? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, The Ref Desk isn't the appropriate place to address this. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries to officials in American football[edit]

Is there any league at any level of American football that publishes injury statistics for officials? I'm trying to find anything whatsoever on this subject, but all I've found is player-injury statistics. Health issues in American football, for example, says nothing about anyone other than the players. My goal is to find something discussing injuries per position; I'm guessing that umpires have the highest rates of injury because they're right in the middle, but I don't have any solid backing for this guess. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this blog, but it's nothing official. Still, a start. Also found this news article. --Jayron32 05:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who - how much material in total?[edit]

How many hours of Dr Who material is there, counted in hours from 1963-2013 ? Electron9 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you have to define what to include. Do you include the missing episodes, the Peter Cushing films, the radio only stories, the official appearances of the characters outside of the show (eg Q6) and the unofficial appearances of the characters (eg the Dalek porn movie) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrogWoolley (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article; "If you were to watch all the televised episodes of Doctor Who, it would take you more or less 22,712 minutes. That’s 15 days and 18 hours of continuous Doctor Who from Hartnell all the way to Smith. Up till now, 97 episodes are missing which amounts to another 39 hours." Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TrogWoolley, I would include all available shows. Not Peter Cushing films (good?), radio only, outside show stuff, or porn. Seems 22 712 minutes is the answer though. Electron9 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aljeezera[edit]

I have read your section on Aljeezra America. Very impressed. Question: Do they own the 100.3 Radio Station WNIC in Detroit? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.137.132 (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, WNIC is owned by Clear Channel. Tevildo (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tootsie[edit]

Alright, I just saw the movie featuring Dustin Hoffman for the first time. My question concerns the last scene of the movie, when love interest Julie Nichols is about to walk out the front doors of a building. In the shot leading up to her walking out the door, the camera follows an African-American male carrying flowers. Is this man Eddie Murphy? I doubt it, and I've looked everywhere, but he looked like Eddie Murphy for those two seconds. I didn't get a good look, and thanks. The Reader who Writes (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a clip of it on YouTube, but the resolution is not good. That said, I do not think it is him. There is no mention of the character in the cast list at IMDB. Looking at the timeline Murphy was making 48 Hrs. that same year and it came out one week before Tootsie, so if it was Murphy, it would have been credited. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Bollywood movie that had the most of number songs[edit]

What was the name of the Bollywood movie that had most number of songs? I forgot about it and I need to see it. Please and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.251 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inder Sabha, 1932. Tevildo (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but the article mentions "songs from the play influenced the geet tradition in Urdu". What is the "geet tradition"? Do we have an article on it? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we do - Geet (song). (The picture in the article seems a little inappropriate, I must admit). Tevildo (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I linked "geet tradition" to it. Yes, that is a bad picture. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]