Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

December 19

Little Bear 1996 Audiobooks

In 1996 British actor Peter Sallis narrated two audiobooks those being Little Bear and Little Bear's Visit and I've been trying to find if any websites that sell it so I can buy it. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any websites sell 'something', they need customers to be able to find them. The 'something' would therefore almost certainly show up in any appropriately-worded web search. If you have web-searched for 'something' and not found it, it's a strong indication that the 'something' is not currently being advertised and/or sold (at least online), either new or (currently) via Ebay and other resale sites. On the latter, of course, any 2nd-hand item might show up at any time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Biggest game between two teams from Indiana ever?

Any candidates other than this Indiana+ND game? Thanks, Abeg92contribs 04:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define "biggest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Most big" ←136.56.165.118 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most supercalifragilisticexpialidociously ginormous, of course. What do they teach in school, these days??? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most important potential outcome? Largest spectator attendance? Largest combined score? Most hyped in the media? We cannot know what you (or the OP, if different) mean by "biggest" (or "most big") unless you define it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the game turned out to be a lot "bigger" for Notre Dame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonstone characters that die 1972

The Moonstone book appears to have three characters from the book that die and it appears that in the 1972 tv series adaptation less of the characters die so how many of the characters from The Moonstone 1972 tv series adaptation die. Also tell me if I was right saying that three of the characters from The Moonstone book die and if I was right tell me each character from the book that dies as well. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question better asked on the Italian Wikipedia, since this Italian-language adaptation was made and broadcast in Italy. It's possible that some responder on this en.Wikipedia Ref desk might be able to find out, but seems to me unlikely. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, The Moonstone (1972 TV series) was made by the BBC in English and subsequently shown in the USA by PBS (but I don't know the answer). Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I didn't spot this one, because in The Moonstone#Adaptations (where I looked), it's appended to the entry for the 1959 version and thus less noticeable, and the next entry is for the Italian production, which I assumed was the one the OP meant – apologies. Obviously, one would have to both re-read the book (which would take days – it's 450+ pages, nearly 193,000 words) and watch the DVD to work out the answers to the questions, and I do not possess the latter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now separated the two BBC versions in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

PEGI "Discrimination"

Have PEGI ever mentioned or otherwise announced why they discontinued their "Discrimination" content descriptor despite?

https://pegi.info/en/search-pegi?q=&age%5B%5D=&descriptor%5B%5D=Discrimination

Looking at their database it was only used on five games from 2004 to 2006 which is miniscule Trade (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://rating-system.fandom.com/wiki/Discrimination_descriptor Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

What's the difference between a free reed and a beating reed?

I read that although there were so called beating reed instruments in Europe since at least the 14th c. (e.g. the regal) the first free reed instruments only appeared in Europe at the end of the 18th c. (e.g. the harmonium, the accordion, etc.) but I've just realized that I don't even know the difference. Could someone explain? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website https://www.patmissin.com/history/whatis.html seems to have an expanded explaination on free vs beating reeda. As I know nothing about the subject I can not judge it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the article Reed aerophone and the Template:Reed aerophones with all the links contained in it will help...? --CiaPan (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all authors use the same definitions, but in this contrast I suppose "beating reed" corresponds mainly to the Hornbostel–Sachs categories 422.1 and 422.2 (the single and double reed instruments, such as the clarinet and the oboe), in which the vibrating single reed beats one edge of the mouthpiece and the vibrating double reeds beat against each other. The "free reeds" are then presumably a combination of category 412.13 (the free-reed instruments, mainly the accordions and harmonicas) and category 422.3, a very small group of Chinese instruments, in which the vibrating reed vibrates freely, not striking anything else. --Lambiam 14:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain? Aren't the beating reeds Hornbostel-Sachs 412.12 (so called "percussion" reeds defined as "a single lamella strikes against a frame"). In any case where on earth are the reed pipes of church organs and reeds of the regal (a kind of medieval organ with only beating reeds and no pipes)? Couldn't find them either in the file mentioned above or in List of aerophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, different sources have different definitions. The Encyclopædia Brittanica identifies "single reed" with "beating reed".^[1] Other authors distinguish between "single beating reed" and "double beating reed".^[2][3] I can't be certain without seeing the context in which these terms are used, but as far as I'm aware no common current instruments fit Hornbostel-Sachs 412.12. The confusing conceptual duplication of sections 412 and 422 has encountered some criticism, as in the book Reed Instruments: The Montagu Collection: an Annotated Catalogue: "I have taken the liberty of of dividing those instruments which should come together under 412 into their types, taking the concussion reeds (412.11) with the double-reed instruments (422.1), the percussion reeds (412.12) with the single-reed instruments (422.2), the free reeds (412.13) with the free-reed instruments (422.3), and placing the ribbon reeds (412.14) at the end, followed by the category, unrecognised by Hornbostel & Sachs but established by Henry Balfour, of retreating reeds, giving these the new number of 412.15."^[4] Reed organs (and reed pipes of multi-register organs) tend to be free-reed instruments; see the mentions of organs in Free reed aerophone. --Lambiam 00:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually List of aerophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number lists under 412.122 "earlier organs", so not empty. Most of the reed pipes (the earlier ones) in normal organs (leaving aside reed organs) are not free reeds. See Reed pipe. Some of them are (cf. their paragraph in that article) but they are a new thing. If we are to believe Pump organ the free reed was introduced in Europe only at the end of the 18th century, yet there have been reed pipes in organs and there have been regals in Europe since as early as the 14th century. That there are terminology and classification issues in organology I can well believe. There are such problems in biology and linguistics so why wouldn't there be in organology. Jeremy Montagu's critique of the usual Hornbostel-Sachs may well be valid. Maybe it does make sense to put percussion reeds with single-reed instruments and get rid of that category. I couldn't say say, since 24 hours ago I had no idea even what a beating reed was. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not empty, but IMO "earlier organs" cannot be considered common current instruments. --Lambiam 15:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Anyone's tried "triple" reeds?

I'm about to experiment with my oboe: I'm planning to insert a little piece of reed between the two reeds of the (European) mouthpiece of my oboe, and then blow and see what happens. (A great December 31st activity!) But before I ruin a good oboe (European) mouthpiece I'd like to know if anyone has tried that already and what happened? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but if you're going to fiddle with making/adding a handmade reed, make sure on your inhale you put your tongue forward incase anything comes loose causing you to choke. You could of course, buy a triple reed.

This safety announcement is not endorsed by Wikipedia. Knitsey (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Thanks a lot. Gotta make sure I don't swallow that little piece of reed and choke on my experiment. Surely, that would be a bad joke on a December 31st! Are there triple reeds for oboes? Really? 178.51.7.23 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I played oboe in uni but that was many, MANY years ago. No such thing then but I googled triple reed and yes, you can buy them. Knitsey (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Joe Bonamassa's "Mind's Eye" starts a lot like some other song?

Joe Bonamassa's "Mind's Eye" (both live and studio) starts really really like some other song by some other artist I can't quite put my finger on. Very annoying. If you get a chance to give "Mind's Eye" a listen see if it rings a bell? Joe Bonamassa seems to like to "borrow" at times: The live version of "This Train" (for example at the Sydney Opera House or at the Red Rocks Amphitheater, in Morrison, Colorado) uses the intro to Jethro Tull's "Locomotive Breath" totally unashamedly. He's not even trying to hide it. Does one pay royalties for this kind of use? The studio version of "This Train" doesn't do that. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recognise it myself, but others might.

Overt 'borrowings' or 'quotations' like this, a variety of tribute, have long been used by classical (in the broadest sense), folk, blues, jazz and rock musicians, and of course Bonamassa works in the blues tradition.

It's usually (in my understanding) considered a compliment to the original composer, and would not usually attract a royalties claim unless the quotation is extensive (in which case the user might well proactively arrange to pay royalties, as they would for a Cover version), or the original's copyright is now owned by heirs or lawyers who might ignore musical tradition and hope to to make easy money. This is distinct from covert and unacknowledged Music plagiarism such as that which was alleged (and ruled to be a 'subconscious copy') for George Harrison's 'My Sweet Lord', for example.

The use of Sampling is another development of this phenomenon, and its legitimacy and legality have been contentous issues.

You've prompted me to think about buying a ticket for Bonamassa's upcoming tour – thanks! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.84.253 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"My sweet Lord (do-lang, do-lang, do-lang) / Ah, may Lord (do-lang, do-lang)" etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Converting a speech contour into notes?

Does anyone know of a piece of software that can convert a pitch contour (a continuous pitch trace: speech, or laughter, or whatever) into a discrete sequence of notes. That involves "quantizing" the continuous pitch trace to (say) the frequencies of the chromatic equally tempered scale or any scale of your choice and the durations to some note value of your choice. 178.51.7.23 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

doctors

for example, dumb woman is faking pregnancy etc.

dumb woman lies about miscarriage.

if doctor’s machine checks dumb woman’s stomach,

can doctor’s machine still prove 100% that dumb woman was never pregnant etc?(124.123.161.159 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)).[reply]