Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 April 9

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 9

What's The Back gournd Music

An ad played for a pub advertised as a pub where the girls of Sex in the city would drink at 5:33pm or 5:32pm in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, today on the 91.7 Bounce radio station.

My question is what is the backround music playing?

This pub is located on Jasper Avenue. And the ad is narrated by a female sounding voice. The ad says that downtown is lively again, I think. I believe the pub is Hat.

Ok, searching a bit more, it might be this bar (well pub as advertised on the ad).

What is the background music that was playing (during this ad)?174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wangju

[1]

Is the first line "Tour Farther"?174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No. It is "Your Partner". -- kainaw™ 02:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story - What's the hold up??

Truth in Numbers watch trailer Anyone know when this film is finally going to be released? or why it's taking so long to come out? -- œ^™ 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Their own description has not been updated since 2007 with a planned release of 2008. If it was still planned to be released, they wouldn't be claiming that it will be released in 2008. -- kainaw™ 13:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The IMDB shows a planned US release date of 2010. As there is only a year and no actual date, presumably this is still tentative. --Anonymous, 22:58 UTC, April 9, 2010.

So I guess it's unknown as to why the delay? Has anyone bothered to ask the creators? I would but I'm not sure how to contact them, is there an email address to contact someone involved in the making of the film? I'll see if I can't get a definite answer.. -- œ^™ 05:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Maybe the work ethic of the encyclopedia has become also the work ethic of the film, at least to some degree. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You can watch for contact telephone numbers at the end of this short video (about 3:50). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You can contact the founder of Wikipedia via Jimmy Wales (jwales) | formspring.me. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow where do you find these sites... Thanks Wavelength! -- œ^™ 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers (3rd nomination), MFG provided a link which is redirected to the video.

(The video is similar to the trailer to which you linked in your opening comment, but some content is different.)

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-08/News and notes#Briefly, point 4 of 5, I learned about the second web page.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The result of AFD was "no consensus" and it got deleted anyway. The system works! Matt Deres (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Excerpt from "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis.

I read this a few years ago, and I've been looking for an excerpt from it. I've spent an hour looking through my copy and Googled for another hour, but I just can't find the full version. I'm beginning to wonder if I hallucinated it. Can anyone who's read the novel tell me roughly where in the book Patrick says something along the lines of "If she has a soul, if souls exist, then all men must have souls, and I can assure you, I do not"? 202.10.89.143 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the book. It's hard to prove a negative, but the only places the word "soul" is used, is in a description of Huey Lewis and the News and their hit single "Heart and Soul", and when Bateman recalls an "incident" with a girl named Alison (Not a soul could've possibly heard about that lovely, horrible afternoon). decltype (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Other bands are in Wikipedia yet when I enter a band page it was removed

A while ago I wrote an article about a band called beef supreme. http://www.beefsupreme.ie is their site so the band exists. Other bands articles are written in wikipedia. Why was mine removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xual235 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because they're not notable. In order for there to be an article on them, there needs to be already some references to them in other professional publications such as books, magazines, newspapers and reliable professional music websites. Those references can then be used to construct the Wikipedia article. Without that media coverage, sorry but there's no place for Beef Supreme in Wikipedia. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The notability criteria for bands are here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is strange that many, many people exclaim "but they are a real band. They really do exist" when the article about their band is deleted. Simply existing is insufficient for a band to be considered notable. It is rare for a band article to be deleted because it is a hoax, but it is very common for band articles to be deleted because they are simply not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The other thing to note is that claiming "Other bands are in Wikipedia" (also known as the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS defence) is also unhelpful and is ignored as a reason to keep the article. Astronaut (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Latin "Te Deum" by Stanford

About 30 years ago I sang a piece of choral music in a concert at school. It was a version of the "Te Deum" in latin and I'm sure it was by Charles Villiers Stanford. Now I cannot find any reference to a "Te Deum" in latin by him and have been told that he did not write one. I've searched sites listing his works and also listened to online music sites, without success. It would, I assume, be either a separate piece or part of a morning service.91.110.143.151 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Te Deum is listed in Stanford's article here, and here is an external link [2]. What is your actual question? Cheers. Winston365 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Winston, the Te Deum you pointed to was an organ work. The OP was interested in a work for choir. Stanford did write a Te Deum for solo voices, chorus and orchestra, his Op. 66, but it wasn't listed in our article; I've just now rectified this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. I saw it listed under choral works in the link I gave (as Op 115) and thought it was the same thing. I stand corrected, nice work! Winston365 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I sang Stanford's Te Deum when I was about 8 years old. The title is in Latin but the text is from the Book of Common Prayer so that it could be used in Anglican worship - it is part the office for Morning Prayer; "We praise thee oh God, we acknowledge Thee to be the Lord, All the world doth worship Thee, The Father everlasting....". Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And is it long and boring, as in tedium ? StuRat (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's actually rather jolly. Traditionally associated with celebrations - when Shakespeare's Henry V wins the Battle of Agincourt he says "Let Te Deum be sung". Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Me again - I put some links in, and found that CVS wrote several Te Deums. The one I sang was I think this one[3] in B Flat Major which I believe is part of Opus 10. The Te Deum page also lists Te Deum in C, Op. 115; and Te Deum in A by him. The Charles Villiers Stanford page lists these as part of musical settings for Morning Prayer, which are going to be in English. However, I think I would go with the Te Deum, Op. 66 (recomended by Jack of Oz above) although I couldn't find any more details. Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Great minds etc. I've just queried (at Talk:Te Deum) whether he did in fact write more than one, because my source mentions only the Op. 66. The Opp. 10 and 115 are called "Morning, Communion and Evening Service". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, many thanks to all you who so quickly volunteered help with this. Unfortunately I still haven't tracked down a Stanford Te Deum in Latin. Op 66 is in English, as are Op 10, 12, 81 and 115. I have managed to locate mp3 files for all these and checked. That leaves Op 36, 143 and the Service in D major for unison choir. I have not been able to listen to any mp3 files or see scores for these, so assuming the list of choral works on the Wiki pages is now complete, these are the only remaining possibilities. To clarify, what I'm after is an Op no., a link to an mp3 file or any other confirmation that Stanford did indeed write a Latin version of the TD. 91.110.249.108 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, I've just found this page: http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Te-Deum-Laudamus-Latin/19390793 - frustratingly without any further details, eg Op no, key, etc. I've e-mailed them to ask for further details and will let you all know if what they claim to have is the piece I'm looking for.91.110.249.108 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens - let us know if you have any joy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)