February 21

I've been watching some ENT (hadn't seen it before) and boy howdy, that Vulcan High Command is sure obnoxious. They just did an unsubtle allegory where they go around repressing Vulcan mind-melders because of their filthy and disease-spreading telepathic habits. My question: what happened to IDIC? Was there some kind of retcon or reboot of the Vulcans into bureaucratic oafs? Surely the Great Bird of the Galaxy never thought of them that way. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Oh hmm, it looks like Vulcan (Star Trek) explains some of this. Maybe I should unask the question for now. It's late here, so I'll probably read the article tomorrow. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO with each successive incarnation of Star Trek, the series gets less and less like Trek. I think it is time to hang up the Star Trek title and come up with another title. Star Trek: Discovery has, again IMO, has absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek, apart from some characters from previous series getting a mention. It should just have been called Discovery; indeed it work with the same stories and some rebadging of characters and species. PS The Vulcans in Discovery are even worse. --TrogWoolley (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a retcon, it's backstory. Remember that ENT is a prequel to the original series. So the writers of ENT decided that in that area Vulcans were more like bureaucratic oafs than they would later be in the era of the original series or STTNG eras. As to Trog's comment, I suggest that the point when the franchise really jumped the shark was when essentially the entire Vulcan species was killed off in the 2009 movie. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a retcon, as it was established after the original series by different writing teams. --Khajidha (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I mostly lost interest in ST sometime during the first sequel (the one where Kirk was replaced by a bald French guy and the Federation turned into a big bureaucracy) though I did see a bunch of those. Babylon 5 killed ST off the rest of the way. But the cable station here (El Rey Network) is showing 5 hours a night of ST shows (all but the most recent ones that probably aren't as cheap to show in reruns) and someone else here watches it so I've been watching some too. ENT has a few likeable aspects but other parts are annoying. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick side question, you do know that Babylon 5 wasn't Star Trek at all, right? Or are you saying that you found B5 better/more interesting than ST? Or were you perhaps confused with Star Trek: Deep Space 9?--Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant getting caught up in B5 made me lose interest in Star Trek. You're probably aware that DS9 was a B5 rip-off[1] by the way. One of the ST movies was made sometime during B5's run, and before the movie's release, word got out that its plot involved time travel (no big deal per se). The joke at the time was that the ST movie was going to be about the crew of DS9 travelling back in time to retrieve Deep Space 8, which had mysteriously vanished immediately after its construction (that's a reference to the B5 episode "War Without End" if you didn't see it.) There was also a saying "you're looking for a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem", when e.g. someone wanted to use a techno fix on a social or political conflict. Good times. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the lead of that article, retcon implies not just that it was established after by different writing teams, but that it adjusts, ignores or contradicts previously established facts. I.E. continuity needs to be broken, hence retcon. Admittedly the text claims simple additions can also be called retcon, but from my experience this isn't isn't how the term is used nowadays maybe why that part is poorly cited. (It lacks any in line citations, but does quote one person.) Did the earlier Star Trek's establish or at least suggest that Vulcan's weren't like in that era? I don't know or care, but if it didn't, that by many common definitions, it's not a retcon. You do get grey areas where maybe something is changed but the writers come up with some reason why it's not, e.g. in the last episode of season 2 of Discovery a reason is given why no one has ever heard of the spore drive etc in future seasons. From my experience, no matter how convincing such stories can be, they are generally also called retcons. But when the future additions just choose one of the reasonably speculated possibilities of the possible backstories, this isn't usually called a retcon. Maybe also when the previous writing team has one clear idea in mind (which they mentioned in interviews or whatever), but their story completely left open another possibility, and the new team chose the other possibility. But not when the original writing team had no real consideration of the matter that the new team decides on. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations pertaining to purely additive usage in the etymology section. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

Does Wikipedia have an article for either of the following Mozart minuets:

1. The Minuet in C has a C half note followed by eighth notes of E-C in the first measure.
2. The Minuet in F has F-A eighth notes followed by 2 C quarter notes in the first measure.

Georgia guy (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it according to this List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Dances. They might be tucked into some other article though. MarnetteD|Talk 02:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the Köchel number of either one? 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link IP. There are several minuets with links to some info about them listed in the table in the Köchel catalogue#List of existing Mozart compositions. MarnetteD|Talk 08:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're both originally from the Nannerl Notenbuch. The first one is an earlier piano version of what later became Menuet I from the third movement of Mozart's Violin Sonata No. 1 in C (K. 6). The second one is Minuet in F, K. 2. There are articles on that second minuet on a few other Wikipedias: Minuetto K 2 / Menuet en fa majeur, KV 2 (Mozart) / Minueto en fa mayor, KV 2 (Mozart). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mozart's 2 most famous minuets"? What led you to that conclusion? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, a good thing given your links is that I can click on Translate to reveal English versions of them. JackofOz, these are the Mozart minuets that occur most frequently in piano books these days. Do you know of a third Mozart minuet that is also very famous?? What is its first measure?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think JackOfOz is saying "citation needed" on these two being the most famous. Seems like an unverifiable opinion. Now, it could be verified that they are the most published, but we would need a source for that statement, not just your assertion (or even your original research by counting). --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What other Mozart Minuet do you think is famous to pianists these days?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the first thing I thought of was Piano Sonata No. 16 (Mozart), which however is not a minuet. Added: also, the ubiquitous Bach Minuet in G major, which is not only not by Mozart, but also not by Bach. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what other Mozart minuets might be known to pianists or anyone else and it doesn't matter. "Most famous" would require a lot more than your assertion. --Khajidha (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to be quite so finicky about sourcing, outside of article space. I'm satisfied with saying to myself "ok, maybe" and leaving it at that. 2601:648:8202:96B0:C8B1:B369:A439:9657 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia guy, you've now qualified your claim by reducing it to minuets famous to pianists. He wrote a heck of a lot more minuets than that. All I know is I've been playing classical piano for close to 60 years and I've never come across these two of which you speak. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing. Andy Warhol said everyone will be famous for 15 minuets. Elizium23 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go figuroe ... ---Sluzzelin talk 03:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz I know you think by saying such as thing: "I've been playing classical piano for close to 60 years and I've never come across these two of which you speak" makes you seem impressive to the rest of us; and attempts to put Georgia guy in his place - but in reality, it makes you sound pompous and ignorant. You claim to know that Mozart "wrote a heck of a lot more minuets than that" yet only these two escaped your 60 year Classical grasp? Really? Hm. Quite the coincidence. I've been playing classical piano for 35 years, and I knew of these minuets in the first 2 years of my studies. In fact, I found them in 5 separate collections of Mozart anthologies in my library upon reading this thread. O.R. <shudder!> The OP stated 2 piano minuets and you took issue with his qualification of reduction famous only to pianists ... do you know any piano minuets by Mozart that are famous to oboists? it seems as though you came into this rather innocent discussion with an agenda. When in reality, you should be thankful: you now know 2 more minuets after 60 years of not ... Maineartists (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For which I will be eternally grateful, I'm sure. But let us stick to the facts: The first time Georgia guy mentioned the word "piano" was after - not before - I queried his assertion. Until then, he appeared to be talking about ALL of the minuets Mozart wrote. Which is a lot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if one area of confusion in this discussion is what the restriction to piano meant. Maineartists mentioned "that are famous to oboists". Yet it seem to be maybe the key counter part is not some other musician, but people in general. It could easily be the case that certain minuets are famous to pianists because they're consider a good teaching and learning tool. But the minuets the general public are most likely to have heard and recognise may be different. And yes, whether they've heard these minuets played via a piano, violin, oboe, didgeridoo, theremin, this would apply since the original question did not say anything about piano minuets. I have no idea if this is the case, I don't even know what a minuet is. And yes, challenging uncited claims is a normal part of the RD. Editors who don't want such challenges should either not make uncited, potentially poorly worded, claims, or find somewhere else where such challenges are not routine. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne "Editors who don't want such challenges should either not make uncited, potentially poorly worded, claims, or find somewhere else where such challenges are not routine." The OP did not place uncited content within an article. This is the Reference Desk/Entertainment. Perhaps the most forum-style, opinionated, free-form, call-in for an answer, and (might I say), least respected part of WP^{[citation needed]}. Where did the editor ever say he "didn't want such challenges"? Your assumption seems harsh. The original question was directed toward a very specific answer; and the vulture type editors that pounced due to a common need for WP policy found within proper article writing, went nuts. The conversation sidelined into something else; when really: Sluzzelin answered the question without incident. The rest is just arguing for the sake of argument. Someone please just close this and move on, Betty. To say I actually I mentioned minuets "famous to oboists" is like questioning the punchline: "What do you mean that wasn't the guy's parrot? Whose parrot was it?" Maineartists (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maineartists: Read carefully. I never said or implied the OP didn't want such challenges. I simply pointed out that if editors did not want such challenges, the RD was not the place for them. This was in response to your suggestion that there was something wrong with such challenges or it was unfair to the OP. It was not unfair, because people who make questionable uncited claims should expect such challenges as it is the norm of the RD. Any editor who does not welcome such challenges is welcome to find a community where that is the norm which is not the RD, or simply avoid offering uncited claims so the situation does not arise. I do not see any evidence that Georgia Guy holds such a view but it does seem like you do, and my point stands there are 2 solutions open to you.

And while there is greater tolerance of uncited claims here than elsewhere, you're mistaken if you think that mean's challenges aren't routine, or that editors aren't expected to provide sources for their claims when necessary. This happens especially with responses, but it also happens with claims made in questions. Especially when those claims are a key part of the question (i.e. if the claim is untrue, the question may not make sense) which admittedly didn't apply here. In fact, an editor was topic-banned and then got themselves indef blocked for socking in part due to their tendency to keep offering unsupported answers in response to questions.

Actually there are so many arguments over whether someone is being excessively nit-picky that I don't understand how someone can think it's not the norm here. Dare I say it, while lack of sources and tendency of editors, yes including me, to offer opinions on the RD is on aspect which has been controversial among non regulars when people complaints about the RD, the tendency of RDers to challenge and nitpick everything is another thing which also tends to get a lot of attention in complaints about the RD.

And while I can't speak for others, when I challenge a claim it is nearly always because I find a claim questionable, and want to see some evidence it is true. Nothing to do with arguing for the sake of arguing. If someone provides a cite, I'm happy since it means I learn something. (This is probably not so common, since a lot of the time I do a cursory search before challenging and don't challenge if it looks like the claim is true or may be true; but it depends on the situation and I still learnt something even if it was from searching myself so am happy even if I would have preferred not to have to search.)

BTW, I stand by my point. What I would assume when someone says "2 most famous minuets" speaking as someone who once learned guitar for a few months when fairly young, and did take compulsory music lessons in primary school, but who's understanding of music theory is extremely limited; is not minuets most famous among piano players. Nor minuets most famous among oboeists. It is minuets most famous among the general public, who don't know how to play the minuet or any musical instrument, and probably like me have no idea what a minuet even is, but have heard them and would recognise them even if they have no idea what they are and probably don't know who composed them or where they originated from.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess the most often played standalone Mozart minuet for piano to be KV 355/576b, honestly. The early pieces from the Nannerl Notenbuch are not really played much. If we are talking about any instrument(s), then it's probably the one from KV 525. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

Aside from defacing a category panel, what else did the impersonated Sean Connery do on the “Celebrity Jeopardy!” segment of Saturday Night Live that would get a real world game show contestant disqualified? --Alec Borden (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you are are talking about Darrell Hammond and his send up of SC in but one example here. Simple answer is almost everything and it might be easier to ask "what didn't he do that would get a real world game show contestant disqualified?" MarnetteD|Talk 03:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turd Ferguson could probably get away with more than "Connery" in real life, being portrayed by the mentally-challenged younger brother of Canadian broadcasting legend Neil Macdonald. For some reason, the combined standards and practices of North American television and journalistic conduct codes seem to simply have no effect on that guy's ability to upset the host and still have his weirdly disturbing-but-true pseudoquestions air. Good luck to CBS producers alone, even after Trebek is gone! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Monty Python's Matching Tie and Handkerchief, did Neil Innes do all the singing about medieval agrarian history? —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

I watched this video [2] on YouTube. It is called 'Trololo man gargling'. But the thing is he was singing in gibberish instead of gargling. That seemed either strange or weird. Why did the OP describe the man's gibberish as gargling?142.255.72.126 (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple lexical selection error. YouTube is full of them, as is Wikipedia.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.2604:2000:1281:4B3:9148:455A:795D:F7BD (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites from the following (per source, he won "BEST YOUNG ACTOR STARRING IN A MOTION PICTURE" for HOME ALONE}:

• "12th Annual Youth In Film Awards". YoungArtistAwards.org. Archived from the original on 2015-07-16. Retrieved 2011-03-31. -- 2606:A000:1126:28D:8095:BB24:F64A:E5FC (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Anyone know of anything decent? Something with super-duper faster than light travel, not instantaneous but no billion year generational ships, not too much technobabble but at least some kind of sciency veneer. There should still be some notion of travel time increasing with distance, so travelling between galaxies should take a while, during which the characters are doing stuff rather than sleeping in stasis. It is ok if there is instantaneous or near-instantaneous communication as opposed to travel. I think in most space travel fiction (plus Star Trek etc.), the ships never leave the galaxy. Maybe this request is a bit odd I'm wondering how universal that limitation is. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]