Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 March 31

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.

March 31

Un-parsley

I remember an episode of (the British drama) Rosemary & Thyme where something that was confused with flat-leaf parsley was implicated in a poisoning. If I recall correctly, the episode was set in a back garden shared by a group of flats (apartments). Does anyone recognize which episode this was, and what was the identity of the poisonous parsley look-alike in the episode? -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the programme but might it have been hemlock[1]which in its early growth is not unlike flat-leaved parsley. Richard Avery (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between foxglove and spinach was a staple of early detective stories. That may be irrelevant. More importantly, why is there no photograph adorning Felicity Kendal's article? Zoonoses (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't uploaded the free photo you took yet? Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cricket

When was the first 6 in test cricket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.54.122 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be astonishing if the first 'six' didn't occur sometime during the first test match - see History of Test cricket from 1877 to 1883. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c, prepare to be astonished) Sixes are not particularly rare so they are as old as cricket itself. The first ever six in test cricket was hit by Charles Bannerman of Australia in the second innings of the second ever test match, between Australia and England between 31 March and 4 April 1877. The full scorecard is here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm astonished. Nice one, Richardrj . DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is even more astonishing, by modern standards, is that Bannerman's 165 out of 245 in the first innings of the first test match only contained 72 runs from boundaries (all 4s) - [2]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the field was bigger than modern fields? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Test cricket was very different even a few decades ago, let alone in the 19th century. Pitches were less good for batting, and the attacking style of play that leads to hitting sixes had not yet been encouraged by the development of the one-day game. Algebraist 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For the several billion readers unfamiliar with cricket, this mysterious subject is alluded to at Six (cricket). Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended Off Topic Discussion

Is this necessary? Are we going to get one of these notes whenever a question refers to something understood only by a small fraction of the Earth's population? Algebraist 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC) There should be more linkage and explanations, since someone else casually reading the ref desk might not have a clue what the question is about. Including the average American, in this case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Why is it desirable that everyone fully understand every question? A question needs to give enough explanation so that people can tell whether it's a topic they know enough about to be useful, and enough that the people who do know something about the topic can actually give an answer. More explanation is a waste of time (and potentially a lot of time, on WP:RD/Math for example). Algebraist 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Math, I could see, as that's an obscure subject for most of the world's citizenry. Not so much so with sports. It doesn't take much added explanation to understand what a six is, even for someone who knows virtually nothing about the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with Algebraist, there wasn't really any need for elucidation in this case since the answer had already been given (by me, as it happens). You are very good at answering questions on American sport but I don't see you or anyone else rushing to explain the intricacies of baseball or American football for those who don't understand them. --Richardrj talk email 05:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC) We do if asked and/or if it seems useful. We don't really get all that many sports questions here. Many more about popular media. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC) When I wrote "you are very good" I was talking to you personally, Baseball Bugs, not to the desk in general. I'm well aware of the kinds of questions we get here, being an experienced RD contributor. --Richardrj talk email 12:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC) And if I see a baseball-related question about something that non-fans might find obscure, I'll gladly elaborate. And if I fail to do so, don't fail to remind me. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) It must be April Fools Day or something. This would have to be the silliest sub-thread I've seen in ages (to which I'm now contributing, but only for obvious reasons). Sure, there was no absolute necessity to provide the link; but since when is it a bad thing to provide additional information, in a spirit of friendliness and clarity and generosity? To argue against such action betokens a small-minded attitude. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed, and disagree with Algebraist's stance. Some people, including myself, don't regularly come here solely to ask or answer questions, but in addition to enjoy and learn from the answers about diverse topics we wouldn't have thought to look up spontaneously. From the popularity of similar but non-participatory sites such as The Straight Dope or Ask a Biologist I imagine this is not uncommon. Blue-linking the odd word in one's own answer (if the OP has not already done so in the question) isn't very time consuming, but blue linking words in someone else's post is of course verboten so an additional note may be necessary. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC) My problem was more with the tone of Comet Tuttle's post i.e. "several billion readers unfamiliar with cricket...this mysterious subject". If he had just put "See Six (cricket)" it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest. --Richardrj talk email 12:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Ironically, I expect a larger chunk of the world's population knows cricket than knows baseball. But if you understand one, it's not difficult to understand the other. If all you know is soccer, I'm sure both cricket and baseball would seem mysterious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Executive summary: A "six" is equivalent to a home run in baseball, except that it automatically counts as 6 runs. That would be a lot of runs in baseball, but cricket is to baseball what basketball is to soccer or hockey, i.e. typically there's a whole lot of scoring in a given match. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a video of Yuvraj Singh hitting an "over's worth" of sixes.[3] It's clear from the commentary that he was "going for it". The 20/20 matches don't leave much margin, so there's a tendency to focus more on the long ball. It's worth pointing out that the fences are not as far away in cricket as they are in baseball, but the equipment is different also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Long ball"...??? Qu'est-ce que c'est??? I assume by "fence" you mean "boundary". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I used baseball terminology to make it clearer to those who know baseball. So what is the right term in cricket? Power hitting/batting? Slugging? Going deep? Going for the Big Six? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only now discovered this useful article - Comparison between cricket and baseball. "Power hitting" is now a widely used term in cricket - eg here, but in less skilled levels of the game it is often called "slogging". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming of Age Movie

My friend and I saw a movie a few years ago and now we can't remember the name. It was a coming of age story (I think autobiographical about the director) and I believe it took place in a former British colony during the 60s, maybe Australia? The main character was, at one point, in some sort of Shakespearian play, and his step-mother's name was Rosie. I know the movie had some sort of strange title, but that's all I can remember. Any help would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.95.232 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Could it be Wah-Wah?[4] - if you have Swaziland instead of Australia and Ruby instead of Rosie, it all fits... Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I thought I may have gotten some details wrong but I'm so happy you found it! Thanks again!

Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources

Hello. I have watched Manon des Sources and at the end when the entire plot (of both films) was revealed, did it mean that because of the attempted self-abortions by Mme. Florette, Jean was born a hunchback? THanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.193.156 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See the Manon des Sources article. It explains it. --Jayron32 04:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not completely, it doesn't. What it does explain is in the last paragraph. It doesn't however, say whether he is a hunchback due to those abortion attempts, although that is the implication. I don't believe the movie says that either, it's just left to the viewer to decide, in a typical French ending,

BTW, did you notice the funny mistake in the 2nd movie ? When the daughter goes to the graveyard to visit her father, the tombstone on the far right of the screen falls over. Apparently it was a prop that wasn't properly fastened down. StuRat (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)