Entertainment desk
< January 11	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 13 >

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.

January 12

Giant TV

I am new on Wikipedia, but I found a product which I think is worth being described on Wikipedia. It belongs to the category technology because it is a really really big outdoor TV. I found about the TV on justluxe.com. I read some tutorials about how to create a new article but I hope to get some additional input from the forum, because after all the reading stuff I´m a bit uncertain if I am able to create an article which will not be deleted immediately ...

The name of the product is C SEED and the company´s name is C SEED Entertainment systems. Furter information can be found on the website: www.cseed.tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitr (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitr (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

1) I added a title to your question.

2) Have they sold any, or is this just a design concept ?

3) This seem like a poorly designed product, to me:

3a) They've taken what can be a very reliable product (I've had TVs last for decades) and made it less reliable, due to all the moving parts.

3b) Putting it outside, and in the ground, seems likely to cause water damage. Perhaps it can handle normal rain, but how about torrential rains with flooding ? How about the frost/freeze cycle in winter ?

3c) Wind might also damage it when up, as might UV from the Sun.

3d) Is it bright enough to view in direct sunlight ? The specs provided fall far short of what I would call specs, missing bits like the brightness.

3e) I can't see how you avoid visible vertical lines where the panels are hinged.

3f) I can't see it being sold in the volumes needed to make for efficient mass production and an economy of scale.

3g) What type of maintenance is required ? I imagine those hinges need to be oiled and the screen must be cleaned, for example.

3h) Not exactly portable, meaning if you move you need to hire professionals to reinstall it. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not claiming that this product is notable, but the company claims to have sold nearly 100 of them (at around $100,000 US each). It is technically portable, but it would require a forklift. The video shows that it pops up out of a protected underground encasement. But, here's the big problem: All videos I could find are obviously computer generated. All photos I could find are obviously photoshopped. So, does this TV actually exist? It could all be a scam. Regardless, it is just a TV. It isn't really notable. -- kainaw ™ 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bet that it actually exists, but is a lot more jerky in it's movements, has visible vertical lines at the hinges, and is too dim to compete with direct sunlight. And for $100K you could build a nice enclosure for a stationary TV. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giant outdoor TV? Is that what some call a Jumbotron? – b_jonas 08:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old game show

One time there was a game show in which contestants had to guess what percent of Americans gave a given response to a question and be within so many percentage points of the answer. I believe it was hosted by Drew Carey. I remember seeing a commercial for the show in which they played an outtake from the next episode. Mr. Carey asked a contestant what percent of Americans said they'd be willing to wrestle a muzzled bear if doing so would pay off their mortgage. Who can find what the answer on that show was? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was Power of 10. You remembered that it was hosted by Drew Carey. Why didn't you look at his page and see which game shows he hosted? -- kainaw ™ 15:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And according to this account, the correct answer was 32%. Deor (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene trilogy

Is the capitalization right on Eugene trilogy, or should it be Eugene Trilogy? I've seen it used both ways. Albacore (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Category:Trilogies and its sub-categories, I see plenty of examples of both spellings. That in itself might indicate they’re both correct, and you can pick the one you like, as long as you’re consistent within the same “writing experience”. Or, it might mean that some of them are compliant with Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and the rest are not.

Wikipedia:Article titles says: Use lower case, except for proper names. But that just transfers the issue to a new question: Is the word "trilogy" in any given case to be considered a proper or an improper noun? I suspect there is no single correct answer to this. If there are plenty of examples in the literature of "Condor Trilogy" but relatively few of "Condor trilogy", that suggests it's considered a proper noun in that case. But you might find another trilogy where most references to it use lower case for "trilogy". I'd be guided by that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]