Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:39, 4 October 2017

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

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.

September 28

Term for casting actors whose ethnicity differ from that of their roles?

On Wiki, I can find articles for whitewashing and racebending, where actors of a particular race get cast for roles where the character is of a different race (e.g. White for Black/Hispanic, etc.). However, I've also observed another phenomenon where an actor gets cast for a role of the same general race but different ethnicity (e.g. an ethnic Japanese actor playing an ethnic Korean character). Is there a commonly used term for this phenomenon? 71.190.158.13 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Color-blind casting. or integrated casting, or non-traditional casting (which seems to be the preferred term in the profession). Wymspen (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered when I was in Japan, they have a Japanese actress playing the Joan of Arc. I kid you not!!

"Though widely known in the West, St. Joan of Arc is an obscure historical figure for many people in Japan. Maki Horikita, who portrays the 15th-century French war heroine in the upcoming TBS stage production “Jeanne d’Arc,” rises to the challenge of making Joan’s tragic life story relevant for a Japanese audience. It is also the first-ever stage performance for Horikita, who, at 22, is one of the few young actresses in Japan with a solid reputation for her craft."

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2010/11/19/stage/joan-of-arc-takes-center-stage/#.Wczf_K2B0UE 110.22.20.252 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Color-blind casting, as mentioned above, became a very popular term in the 90's. Previous to that, it was commonly called integrated casting. I don't know what terms were used before the 70s. It is a neutral term. It doesn't have positive or negative connotations itself because it is used for both positive and negative situations. For example, when Danny Glover was cast in Lethal Weapon for a role intended to be a white policeman, the color-blind casting was heralded as the future of Hollywood (it wasn't). When The Last Airbender used a white cast for Asian characters, the color-blind casting took on a new term "racebending," which was further pushed in Cloud Atlas - bending every character to multiple racial and ethnic stereotypes (very poorly, in my opinion). Other than Cloud Atlas, I haven't seen racebending used much as it was a play on words with the "bending" in the Last Airbender. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the next issue, if you do cast somebody of a different race, is if you use blackface, yellowface, etc., to make them look like the desired race. This can be more offensive than the casting choice itself. Mickey Rooney's Asian character in Breakfast at Tiffany's was one example that drew a great deal of criticism. See Breakfast_at_Tiffany's_(film)#Portrayal_of_Mr._Yunioshi_and_Yellowface_controversy. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above aren't addressing the question asked. I don't think it has a name, but Zoe Saldana's role in Nina is a recent example. Saldana is Dominican/Haitian/Puerto Rican, and there was some controversy about her being cast as an african american historical figure. I looked through some news articles about that controversy and couldn't find any terms for this phenomenon. Staecker (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C.

Hello there i have an enquiry on a football matter, iv been looking at your uefa cup europa league page which teams from europe take part in who done well the previous season including teams that came runners up i know now days they would enter the champions league but the season in question is 1973-74 as an arsenal supporter i was wondering why they was not in the competition that year or did they get knocked out in a prelimery round etc, you see they finished runners up in the league in 1972-73 so i would expect them to have been in this competition , im pretty sure they wasnt banned so thats why im contacting you people who do an excellent job ,if theres any light you can shine on the query id be much graefull to find out, thanks anyway, keep up the good work,jimmy mason.

According to a passage in the article Arsenal F.C. in European football,

"The European Cup Winners' Cup, later retitled the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, was founded in 1960 and involved the winning clubs of national cup competitions in Europe. Arsenal, in the First Division at the time, were ineligible for both competitions, given that the club did not win a league championship or domestic cup for almost two decades. [My added italics.]

So in 1973-4 Arsenal, being only runners up in Division One the previous year, did not qualify. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it. The solution is in note 1 in 1972–73_Football_League. The English football league continued to enforce the rule that only one club from any city could compete in the UEFA cup, and London was already represented by League Cup Winners Tottenham Hotspur. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the same note in Arsenal F.C. in European football. jnestorius^(talk) 16:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

FIFA and PES Jersey preview

In most of the FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer (PES) video games there are previews for the jerseys of outfield players but do any of the FIFA or PES video games have any previews for the goalkeepers jerseys? (Mobile mundo (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

England Bandy Federation changing names again?

Hi. Does anyone have some information on this? At Facebook it says it will widen its area to the whole of the UK, but there is no change announced at the homepage of the federation. Please comment at Talk:England Bandy Federation#Great Britain. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Blade Runner

According to Blade runner, a Blade runner is a policeman who hunts and 'retires' replicants. Is there a reference to this definition? Why is this definition correct. One google I found suggested that a "blade runner" was a medical equipment smuggler (scalpels...) which at least makes some sense. So why BR for a policeman? (I have never seen the film or read book DADOES.) -- SGBailey (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why you ask "Why is this definition correct". It's correct because that's what is strongly implied in the movie. (I don't think there's ever a scene where someone says "a blader runner is....." but the protagonist is called a blade runner and what that means is basically explained through words and actions of the movie. And I don't think the original book, ever refers to a blade runner although I'm not sure about the sequels.) Did you mean to ask "is there an explanation in the context of the film or books of why a replicant hunter is called a blade runner?" instead, since that's what the rest of your post seems to be referring to? Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I thionk that's what I was trying to ask. -- SGBailey (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bryant: I need ya, Decks. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion about running blades and the movie is addressed (briefly) at our article Blade Runner (a movie) (note that the italics are correct; it's actually a novella with the parenthetical title of (a movie) tacked on). See the second paragraph here or a slightly more detailed explanation here. Incidentally, I found all this within 30 seconds of entering blade runner definition into Google. I guarantee it took you longer to type in your question here than it would have to find the answer yourself. Matt Deres (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt - as you may notice in my original question, I mentioned medical smugglers. I had done a google search. That still doesn't explain why a policeman killing robots should be "nicknamed"(or is it an official term?) with the role of a medical smuggler. I guarantee you that the answer to the question I seek has still not been answered, despite many google searches, other than "it just is so". There doesn't seem to be a reason for the use of the term for policemen. I guess in real life some Hollywood person (Ridley) liked the term and in film life there is no reason to explain it. Ah well. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human#Relationship_to_other_works states: 'The etymology of the term "blade runner" is revealed to come from the German phrase bleib ruhig, meaning "remain calm." It was supposedly developed by the Tyrell Corporation to prevent news about replicants malfunctioning.' There's a term for when you change a foreign term to sound like a term in your own language, but I can't think of it at the moment. But yes, I think this was all added after the fact, and the term was just chosen because it sounded good. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purely OR: I had assumed "blade runner" was a reference to ice skating, i.e: somebody who could quickly and silently respond to a specific location. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Ridley Scott, who mus be accepted as the authority on this matter even if you disagree with him...

Ridley Scott didn't want to use the term "detective" because it was too "lazy." He tasked Hampton Fancher with coming up with a better name. Fancher found out about a book by William S. Burroughs titled "Blade Runner (a movie)." Scott loved the name because it represented "Deckard's character, which runs on the knife's edge between humanity and inhumanity." So, he had his team purchase rights to the name "Blade Runner" from Burroughs. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you have a source for that, it would make an informative addition to the article's 'Development' section. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very short synopsis of Paul Sammon's very popular interview with Ridley Scott in 1996 for HarperPrism. Sammon specifically asked about the title and Scott explained the whole process of purchasing rights from Burroughs. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

companies communicating or clashing

How often do Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. work together on motion pictures? How often do Warner Bros. and Disney work together on projects? And how often do Disney and Nickelodeon work together on projects?2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define what you mean by "how often". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From time to time, do the above mentioned companies tend to work together with one another?2604:2000:7113:9D00:A9A3:787:150C:9859 (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No answer, but, addressing Baseball Bugs: "how often" can be measured in frequency, that is in occurences per unit of time (e.g. per year, per decade etc.). The question can be answered for a given time span without using semantic differentials such as "very often" or "hardly ever". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't cooperate in a way that an average person would consider cooperation. Much in the same way that the technology industry is always suing each other over silly patents, production companies are always attacking each other over copyrights and general production and distribution rights. When two competing studios come to a legal agreement, they claim they are working together - which means that they are temporarily not suing each other. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pictures

On September 1, 1987, The Coca-Cola Company announced plans to spin off its assets of Columbia Pictures, which it had owned since 1982. Under this arrangement, Coca-Cola would sell its entertainment assets to TriStar Pictures, of which it owned 39.6%. Tri-Star would be renamed to Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (CPE), with Coca-Cola owning 49%, its shareholders owning 31%, and Tri-Star's shareholders owning 20%. A new company was formed in early 1988 with the Tri-Star name to take over the studio's operations.

Now, (1) what do the bold terms exactly refer to and (2) how come Coca-Cola owned 49% of TriStar after selling (!) its Columbia shares to TriStar, although it had only possessed 39.6% of the latter before? And (3): Regarding the phrase "Coca-Cola would sell its entertainment assets", does that imply in fact that the Columbia shares were Coca-Cola's only entertainment assets? I'm a bit confused...--Tuchiel (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here, about 10 paragraphs down. Coke sold its entertainment assets (I don't know what those were) in return for newly created shares of Tri-Star, which increased its holding above the previous 39.6%. Then it distributed some of the Tri-Star shares to existing Coke stockholders ("its shareholders") so it would would hold only 49% of Tri-Star.

October 1

Film ratings and distributors

I'm looking for the websites of respective film classification boards in Luxembourg, Malta and Vietnam where I can find ratings and local distributor of certain theatrical film. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 03:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Luxembourg that doesn't seem to exist. http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/fr/actualites/2010/07/05-CSCF/index.html (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same in Malta. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film at 11

"This is a later interpretation of the idiom, as news broadcasts were not counted in ratings during the time 16mm film was used in newsgathering and hence promotions typically took the form of "newsflashes" or "special reports" which simply conveyed the facts of the story." — What exactly do "ratings" and "newsgathering" refer to? I can't really make head or tail of this statement.--Tuchiel (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ratings" means Nielsen ratings. "Newsgathering" just means the process of preparing a news report, such as learning the facts and filming the events.

That's a rather poor article you're linking to. I'm tagging it for NPOV. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Tuchiel (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Actually, the whole sentence still does not really make sense to me: "and hence promotions typically took the form of "newsflashes" or "special reports" which simply conveyed the facts of the story." — Don't modern news reports convey the facts of the story, too? And what does "hence" refer to here – I mean why should the newsflash thing be an argument for the purported fact that news broadcasts did not count in ratings? Sorry if I'm blockheaded. Best--Tuchiel (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all in reference to broadcast news, as opposed to on-demand news. Broadcast news is commonly delivered as a teaser and then, later, the story. A ridiculous example might be something like starting out as 6:03pm with "There are three things you probably have in your kitchen that are likely to kill you in the next month! Stay tuned in to find out what they are." Technically, they are delivering content, but only just enough to get you to listen to other stuff while you wait for the real story. This does not have to be limited to a single broadcast. Assume that a station has news at 6 and 11 (very common). The 6pm news show would want to let people know about the triple-murder that took place that afternoon, but they would also want you to tune in at 11pm to get more news. So, they would make a promise that there would be more information at 11 (the whole "film at 11" trope). So, in a nutshell, the 6pm news does a teaser, the team does "newsgathering" to prepare a better product that will be on "film at 11." 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Why shouldn't somebody who constantly misspells things be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles ?

Hi how can i eddit an article with out another bloger Erased That thing that I just added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyjampr78732156 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your username hasn't added anything to articles that was removed by other editors. You have removed useful information (here and here) that was reverted . Vandalism is usually reverted quickly, either by editors or bots. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell why the OP posted on this page, but given the user ID, likely to be short-lived at Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell why certain editors pick seemingly random pages to vandalize in a seemingly random way. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E19A:1892:B4DC:8315 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added an appropriate title (I counted at least 8 errors in your one sentence question, and we can add failing to place a title, on top, to that list as well). Seriously, you need to study English in school before attempting to edit Wikipedia again. We don't expect edits to be perfect, but we do expect them to be a lot better than this. If Spanish is your native language, then perhaps you can write better in Spanish, and thus should contribute to Spanish Wikipedia instead. StuRat (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been indeffed as a sock. To the OP, the simple answer is WP:Competence. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and editors aren't required to be perfect. But if we are spending more time cleaning up after you than we gain from your edit, then you are a net negative. As a volunteer project if editors are a net negative and this doesn't seem sufficiently likely to change, these editors are generally unwelcome. We don't always agree who is a net negative or how much chance someone should be given to improve. But there is general consensus that eventually, even if an editor acting in WP:Good faith; if their edits are so bad because of a lack of knowledge, understanding of what the standards for wikipedia articles, or simply atrocious English there comes a time when it's simply not worth keeping them around any more in the hope things will improve enough that they are no longer a net negative. I'd particularly note that anyone who thinks they are so important to the project such that they WP:Sock to be able to edit after blocks (or whatever the reason why they sock), is even more likely to be seen as a net negative. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

How come in sports like basketball, a single player can make the difference in success, but not in football?

I've noticed that it's common in certain sports, particularly basketball, for a single player to make the difference between championship contenders and being cellar teams. Theoretically, a bad team one year could become a playoff contender or even a championship contender with the addition of one or two good players. Conversely, the departure or injury of even one key player could ruin a team's chances. By contrast, in other sports (like football), while one player could make some difference, success or struggles seem to stem more from overall factors as opposed to a single player. For example, in the case of Leicester's 2016-17 struggles, while N'Golo Kante's departure from the team was cited to be the biggest cause, there were also other factors that affected the team's situation; meaning Kante's departure was not the sole reason. By contrast, in the 2012 NBA playoffs, Derrick Rose's injury was pretty much enough for the Bulls to be defeated in the first round, despite having the 1st seed. Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that kind of football. Perhaps the level of play in soccer is so high that players' skill levels in top leagues are closer together (Leicester is/recently was Premier League right?) Also, 1 player is 1/5th of the basketball starters, 1/11th of the soccer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every sport is different. You might have the greatest pitcher in the history of the world, someone who wins every game - but he's only going to get a fraction of the wins a ball team needs to qualify for the post-season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In basketball, every player is involved in nearly every play, whereas that doesn't seem to be the case in football (and baseball). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because in Basketball, a player on the floor is 1/5th responsible for his team's success, where as in football he's 1/11th. 1/5 is a larger number than 1/11. Math is hard.--Jayron 32 11:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a factor but not the only one. In basketball a ball possession usually ends with a shot with a good chance of scoring, even if some of the team is mediocre. A star player can take a large part of the shots. In football you need a team to set up scoring chances. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is the pace of the game. In basketball, scores happen continuously. The goal is score at a faster rate than the opponent. You can't stop them from scoring. You just try to slow them down. This is caused by the shot clock. Once your team has the ball, they must attempt to score in 24 seconds. The fast pace means that in basketball the ball moves quickly from player to player. No single player gets to dominate the ball. In football (soccer), the pace is completely different. Scores of 0-0 are common. A score of 1-0 or 0-1 is expected. A score of 3-0 is a blowout. With the pace being so slow, a single player can dominate the ball. If you added a shot clock to football that required the offense to attempt a goal in 24 seconds, the pace would increase and players would share the ball more. In football (gridiron), it is a completely different game. Only a few players ever touch the ball, but those who rarely touch the ball (such as the linemen) are the ones most involved in every play. If you have a bad offensive guard, it weakens your line and you can't run the ball to the weak side or protect he quarterback to try a good pass. Every play becomes a panic to escape the weak side of the line. Any weakness is easily exploited and drastically limits what may be done. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it in the most general terms, some sports rely more on teamwork, and others don't. For example, a relay race relies on every member of the team, while with some other "team sports", they just take the top individual score or two, and in this case the scores of the rest of the team don't matter at all. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Boom Animation's removed filmography sections

Hi. The Films, TV Series, Music Videos and Video Games sections on Toon Boom Animation were removed in August for being unsourced. Can anyone here please find sources for the titles? Thanks! 178.22.170.123 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping YOU from doing it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much research, plus the page is locked. 5.167.49.12 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if you're too lazy to do the research, why should anyone here be bothered with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who dressed the best?

PopCrush had an online voting poll. It was to determine who it the Best Dressed Queen of 2017. Camila Cabello and Ariana Grande made it to the Finals. The voting closed the other day. But PopCrush didn't reveal the results. Who won the Best Dressed Queen of 2017?2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd "final" round of voting ended Monday, October 2 at 11:59 p.m. EST: [1] -- you still need to wait for the final results to be published. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With a contest title like that, I'd expect entries from RuPaul, etc. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

In the meantime, be sure to visit the site often ...and click on the ads! ;) — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And once again,shameful overlooking of Elizabeth II here... Lemon martini (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a foul?

[2] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase the old adage: "your right to swing your basketball ends where my nose begins". It looks like he just missed his nose. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of ANY basketball Personal foul that does not require physical contact. There is no contact made in that video, thus no foul. There is the possibility of a technical foul, but I can assure you there's nothing there that qualifies as a technical foul. --Jayron 32 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems it's not (I don't know the rules to the last letter) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, it looks to me like part of his hand and part of the ball go behind the defender's head. So I think the perspective is messing you up, and he didn't do this right into the guy's face, but off to the side. It just looks like a close call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Fact or fiction

Loudwire has a series of videos on Youtube entitled 'Wikipedia: Fact or fiction'. Here is an example with two members of Stone Sour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7S5XgqC-6Q What do you think about editing wikipedia articles on the basis oftheir content? Munci (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions asking for opinions should not be answered in this venue. --Jayron 32 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Music: Documentary

Is there a documentary about the film The Sound of Music? 5.80.99.45 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walker, Christopher (29 December 2012). "Climbed Every Mountain: The Story Behind the Sound of Music".
Vint, Rob (18 March 2015). "The Untold Story of the Sound of Music".

Not sure, but the 1st one is probably about the actual Von Trapp family whereas the 2nd is about the film.

—2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 ::<small>In the meantime, be sure to visit the site often ...and click on the ads! ;) — [[Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50|2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50]] ([[User talk:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:65A7:28DA:7F79:4E50|talk]]) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)</small>
+And once again,shameful overlooking of Elizabeth II here... [[User:Lemon martini|Lemon martini]] ([[User talk:Lemon martini|talk]]) 23:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 == This is not a foul? ==