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.

January 22

Film title: La Cage aux Folles

Re: La Cage aux Folles. What is the English translation for this film title? I always assumed that it was a French phrase; and I always assumed that it meant "A cage of fools". But, I cannot get any meaningful help from "Google Translate". And the Wikipedia article does not give the English translation. (Unless I missed it.) Does anyone know? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do the words individually it might make more sense. It seems to mean more like "crazies." But the origin of "fool" may be useful.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Folle was a slang word for gays in the 1970s, and the name comes from the gay nightclub which the couple manages in the movie. In everyday speech, "folle" is the feminine of "fou" when used as an adjective (which means crazy; its root is the same as the English "fool"). The film was remade in English under the name "the Birdcage", which is sort of equivalent. --Xuxl (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the word "fou" can be seen as a little bit obscene in French, depending... The pronunciation is identical to several forms of the verb "foutre" (to fuck) (see here, je fous, tu fous, etc.) and there's several French idioms that take advantage of this double entendre. --Jayron 32 17:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

Another hint: The Birdcage is the title of an adaptation; and another etymology to consider: folly. —107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence Les Folies Bergère = The Shepherdess's Mistakes. (Grammarians of the utmost fame have long wondered just exactly what it was that she repeatedly got wrong.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "Les folies de la bergère". In the actual name, Bergère is apparently from the name of a nearby street, according to the French wp article. Folies could be translated as "Tomfoolery" or "Silliness" in this context. --Xuxl (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "follies" is cognate with folies, and both are used to signify a big show or "extravaganza".[2] As with productions like the Ziegfeld Follies or the Ice Follies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Xuxl: :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article La Cage aux Folles (play) - which is about the original theatre production on which films and musical are based - appears to translate the title as "Birds of a Feather." Wymspen (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember it Wymspen's post is the translation that was used by most of the film reviewers at the time. Here is Ebert's review. Here is a more recent review using the same translation. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Very helpful. And I just noticed that the Wikipedia article entitled La Cage aux Folles (musical) states the following: La cage aux folles literally means "the cage of mad women". However, folles is also a slang term for effeminate homosexuals (queens). Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even more literally imho, "the cage with mad women. –Tamfang (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, while there is not a one-to-one correlation between prepositions in French and English, usually "avec" means "with", and I don't see where this usage prefers with; "of" works better here. --Jayron 32 11:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

avec is translated 'with', but it's narrower than the English word: more like 'accompanied by'. In Astérix et Cléopatre, to pull an arbitrary example out of the dust-bunnies of memory, Panoramix is described as un druide à barbe blanche, where we'd say "with a white beard". In Le Devin, iirc, Obélix is described on different pages as roux … avec des tresses [red-haired, with braids] and un grand guerrier roux à tresses. Marcel Gotlib made a shaggy-dog pun involving l'allée … aux cent cimes [the lane with a hundred peaks]. —Tamfang (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the point I was making. One has to understand the idiomatic translation to pick the right preposition. The "Cage of Mad Women" translation works better because English uses "of" in parallel constructions (c.f. ship of fools, house of the rising sun, etc.) --Jayron 32 13:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Silent piano concert

Some time between 1996 and 2002 I heard an anecdote of an entirely silent piano concert.

The piano was gimmicked, modified so it didn't make any sound at all as the pianist played on it. This was a solo concert, with just the pianist playing. The pianist played specific real pieces of piano music at the start of the concert (silently), but switched to just hitting the keys at random in the later parts of the concert. The concert was successful with the audience, they requested multiple encores. The concert had been advertised as something like “the mute pianist” playing or some such. I do not know when the concert was, but it may have been decades before I heard the anecdote. I do not know if it was in Hungary or abroad.

Can you point me to any information about the actual concert? When was it, who was playing, where, how large was the aduience, how many times has this happened, anything?

I tried to search on the web, but I only found various other stories. None of the following are what I'm looking for.

Performances of John Cage's 4′33″.
A concert on a so called “Silent piano”, electric piano that the audience can hear only through headphones.
A story about german musician who spent several months in 2005 in a psychiatric hospital in Great Britain, never speaking a word, but playing the piano well.

– b_jonas 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of the concert you refer to, but (perhaps inspired by it), some years ago a BBC music-quiz programme on (radio and?) TV regularly included a round of 'Silent piano' where the pianist played pieces on said instrument and contestants had to try to identify them from the mechanical sound of the keys. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.128.132 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was Face the Music, and the pianist was Joseph Cooper. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and the celebrity contestants would identify it from hand movements, which the radio audience didn't see. That makes much more sense, thanks, AndrewWTaylor. Interesting tangent, but my original question is still up. – b_jonas 12:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it was only ever a TV programme, not radio. For TV viewers, but not the panel or studio audience, the sound was faded in after a while, making identification of the piece somewhat easier. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling my memory deficiency, Andrew. Incidentally, I notice that the FtM article's Reference two has suffered link rot: instead of linking to the relevant Independent 2011 obituary, it now goes to the current front page. Beyond my Wiki-fu – anyone? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.128.132 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the obituary on archive.org, or anywhere else, and it's flagged as a "permanent dead link" in Cooper's article, so it may be lost for ever, at least online. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the quality of films/books/etc.

Isn't there a name for the proposition that overall, most films/books/etc. have poor quality, and only a few films/books/etc. are great?

Maybe "law of (something)". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Sturgeon's law, which states that "ninety percent of everything is crap". --Antiquary (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who was ever forced to read Silas Marner might agree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs:: I didn't read it, so now I'm curious. What exactly do you mean? Are you saying that book is crap? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just 90 percent of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs:: LOL, got it! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All novels are Mystery Novels if you don't read the ending. —107.15.152.93 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, Sturgeon's Law and similar propositions usually refer to an entire genre of literature or other art, an artist's overall corpus, or a field of study, not to the contents of a single novel or other work of art. (Moved to comment because I was privileged to know Ted Sturgeon towards the end of his life.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.128.132 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also know nine crap writers around that time? Or, more dramatically, first? Not asking for names, just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, January 25, 2018 (UTC)

I was acquainted with dozens of writers, being a frequent SF/Fantasy Convention attendee in the UK (whose fan-run cons were generally small and intimate compared to US Cons, and which writers often attended as ordinary members, not just as GoHs). It happened that after I met Ted and his partner Jayne at a con, they made an extended visit to the east coast of Scotland where I then lived, and I helped to arrange accommodation for them. As for how many of the writers I knew/know were/are crap, I'm not going to disclose detailed judgements, except to say that one of them was Lionel Fanthorpe, whose own opinion of his fiction output was refreshingly realistic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.128.132 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of refreshingly realistic opinion did Lionel Fanthorpe have about his own fiction output? I don't suppose he called it crap or anything like that, right? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Song please

Can't google a relatively known song from the 90s or early 2000s, sung by a female, chorus lyrics are approximately: "All over day / All over night / You [...] to make the things alright / The sun is... / The sun is..." Slightly reminiscent of "Genie in a Bottle", but not that. Thanks. 78.11.167.237 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a song which goes something like "the sun is red... the moon is white" but I don't think that's quite it because I can't find it in Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Keep on Loving You (song) how does the guitar sound like an airplane landing?

Or there may be another term for it. I feel it belongs in the article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJzNZ1c5C9c 2:12— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "airplane landing" do you mean the pick scrape? You actually can watch him perform the pick scrape in the video itself. This is a common tool in any lead guitarist's repetoire, and it's common enough to not bear mentioning. Could also be a string bend, a form of glissando which is even more common. You can see the guitarist performing many of those as well. --Jayron 32 16:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was looking for the terminology. Yeah, I can see him doing it, but I didn't know exactly what was involved. The sound of an airplane landing was what it sounded like on the radio.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pages For "Whiteheart" & "Petra" & Billy Smiley & Leader Of Petra

Hi;

I wanted to let you know that you need to update the pages for these 80's groups so that their lifer fans like myself know that they are still performing as a collaborated group! "The Union Of Sinners & Saints" & have released a Medley CD & a new CD of this new combined group!

This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you have reliable sources for that information, feel free to add it to articles where it's relevant. See here if you have any questions about editing. Matt Deres (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinny vocal effect on songs

I occasionally hear an effect in music where the singer's voice gets altered to make it sound tinny, almost what you'd hear on an old radio. Is there a name for that effect and/or how is it produced? It's not too uncommon, but the song that inspired the question was CCR's version of Susie Q where, about two minutes in on the version I've got (run-time of about 4:45), the voice shifts for about twenty seconds and then goes back. The instrumental music doesn't change (so far as I can tell). Matt Deres (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, bands will actually playback the bit through a crappy radio and re-record it. You can use an in-line effects filter to a similar effect; a High-pass filter will attenuate bass signals and allow higher frequency signals through; I believe that's how David Gilmore recorded the guitar intro for Wish You Were Here Analogue high-pass filters have been used for decades, with modern music it's all modded electronically now, usually. --Jayron 32 19:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you can just "sing through your hands" as in Winchester Cathedral (simulating a megaphone sound). —107.15.152.93 (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thank you. Matt Deres (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon did an "old radio" or "old phonograph" voice effect early in the song "Honey Pie". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

New Graphics Packages

I Looked Up On Adweek That NBC Sports Will launch a new graphics package for the super bowl does that mean that the new graphics package and scoreboard will replace the old graphics and scoreboard. But will it have a new scoreboard too. If that is ture. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'll feature "three-dimensional scans of several players participating in the game." Also two-dimensional scans of players not participating in the anthem. Other than that, time will tell. It might also tell whether Papa John's prefers avoiding such newfangled hoopla for the good old XFL. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, January 26, 2018 (UTC) After Super Bowl LII The New Graphics Package Will Be Used on Other NBC Sports And NBCSN Productions But I Could Be Right. If that's Ture. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Didn't you answer me a few days ago GET YOUR LAZY BUTTS IN GEAR NOW. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a bad feeling about this

I've seen both Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and it occurs to me I can't remember anyone saying, "I've got a bad feeling about this" in either of them. Can it be that the writers have given up the tradition of having someone say that in every Star Wars film? Or did I just miss it? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last Jedi - [3], for the Force Awakens, clips of Han Solo saying it are easy to find online. Nanonic (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, that's a relief. Now that you mention it, I do remember it from The Force Awakens. And of course everyone has to be told who says it in The Last Jedi. Thanks for your help! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones said it too.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Han Solo says the line in The Force Awakens, see point 2 in this answer. The Last Jedi does not have the line, but the director of the film tried to argue that R2-D2 says it in beeps. – b_jonas 19:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Winning a tennis match with fewer points than your opponent

It's certainly possible to win a tennis match, even though you've won fewer points overall than your opponent. My question is, on the ATP / WTA / Grand Slam tour, how common is this - for the winner of the match to be the player who has won fewer points overall? I'd love some percentage figures, but, failing this, can some tennis-head offer an estimate? Eliyohub (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a column on fivethirtyeight that looked at pretty much exactly this question. Since 1991 (up to when the column was published in 2014) about 8.8% of Wimbledon matches were won by a player scoring fewer points. The other Grand Slam tournaments had a smaller proportion: around 6.5%. Across their larger database of tournament matches, the proportion was about 7.5%. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source is about a slighty different question: How many players win after winning a smaller percentage of return points than the opponent (a return point is when the opponent serves). The two players will usually have a different number of total return points so the answer can be different from the poster's question but it will probably be rare. The server has a large advantage in tennis so comparing the percentage of won return points may give a more fair idea of which player did "better" when you ignore the scoring system. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow verse episode synopsis's

for some reason your pages for the flash, arrow, legends of tomorrow and supergirl all have the wrong synopsis's and i don'r know why you can find all the right one on these following websites http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Supergirl_episodes, http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_The_Flash_episodes, http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Arrow_episodes, http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DC%27s_Legends_of_Tomorrow_episodes i hope you can change them to what they should be

This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit; if you find something incorrect, you are encouraged to correct it. Keep in mind, however, that the sites you listed are also created by anyone who felt like editing them, so they are not considered reliable sources to go by. They are also fan-sites, which are much more lax about original research and opinion, which are discouraged here. As a point of general advice, blanket statements like yours are difficult to examine. If you can provide some specific example of something that's incorrect, it will be easier for people to consider your words. Matt Deres (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write "better" episode plots, please do so, but don´t WP:COPYPASTE from other places, you must use your own words. As long as you just describe and not interpret the story (more like "Arrow cries" and not "Arrow is devastated by grief"), the episode/film/fiction itself is the source, so you don´t need the usual inline citations. In general.

More about what is a "good" plot/synopsis on WP at MOS:PLOT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Film ratings: unrated (UR) versus not rated (NR)

What is the difference between a film rating of "UR" (unrated) versus "NR" (not rated)? I am specifically asking in the context of films listed at Netflix. I can't seem to find a distinction. I have read the Wikipedia article on Motion Picture Association of America film rating system. And I have scoured the Netflix website. At the Netflix website, all I get is this:

Ratings: UR - Unrated. This movie has not been rated by the MPAA. and
Ratings: NR - Not rated. This movie has not been rated by the MPAA.. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google has a lot of stuff. Here are some opinions:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I had already seen all of that. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I believe the post by "MLutthans" is correct: "not rated" (or "not yet rated") means exactly that: it hasn't been submitted for rating, while "unrated" more usually refers to a film that's been uncensored to include the stuff they had to cut out of it to procure the rating the film company wanted. Example. Matt Deres (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That (somewhat) makes sense. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: you're User:Joseph A. Spadaro, aren't you? Just wondering why you're not posting from your WP account. Your block has expired now. There's no reason why you have to use your account, I know. Just curious. --Viennese Waltz 09:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Viennese Waltz: Hi. Yes, it's me. Yes, I know that my block expired quite some time ago. There is no "real reason" that I am posting from this "anonymous" IP address account, as opposed to my "real" account. Right now, I am not really contributing to or editing any article content. And I just had a few quick questions to ask on the Reference Desks. But, basically, no real reason. I didn't really want to be "bothered", since I am not editing articles. And only had a few quick reference questions that had popped up in my mind. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion likely comes from marketing use. When a movie is rated, an "unrated" version is commonly released. It has become rather commonplace. On Netflix, you will see some unrated movies. If you look at Amazon or Vudu, you will see both the rated and unrated versions of the movies. You can look at the runtime to see how much is added. Overall the "unrated" marketing has replaced the "director's cut" marketing. It isn't nearly as popular to see a director's cut movie anymore, which would be an unrated movie if the studio doesn't submit the director's cut for a rating. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in marketing is that "unrated" generally means "more tits and blood and curse words" whereas directors cut doesn't necessarily. --Jayron 32 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

which version or edit is correct

I was curious with one part to a template, (example x) and I copied a part to the sandbox, as from Chronos Ruler. So this had the first two characters have the parentheses (example b) instead of the 'actor A, the line, actor B and the closing brackets', to the characters. Other than a ref/ source.

Then do I follow example x as from the template or from example b, and edit to look how x is? Because in some pages/ articles to an anime show had that for any other current t.v. show seasons? or 'current t.v. season.' Unblue box (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get an answer here, try the Help desk. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5816:CC2:4ADE:73A0 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]