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 24

A Hazell Dean/Pet Shop Boys moment?

At about 2' 35" into "Whatever I Do (Wherever I Go)" by Hazell Dean there is a moment that sounds like something off a Pet Shop Boys b-side or club mix - a stuttering sampled voice saying something like "sex". You can listen to Ms Dean at this well-known video site. I can't quite place the PSB track it reminds me of. Can anyone help? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stuttering bit, although not the "sex" vocal, reminds me a bit of I'm Not Scared by Eighth Wonder, which was of course written and produced by the Pet Shop Boys (albeit a few years later). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Montalbano DVDs with Italian subtitles

I'm an avid watcher of the "Commisario Montalbano" series on DVD - with English subtitles. But I'm also keen to improve my Italian, and wonder if the DVDs are available with subtitles (intended for instance for the hard of hearing) in Italian? A lot of the dialogue is a bit too fast for me to be able to follow (not to mention the Sicilian dialect as used by Catarella and others!),

rossb (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a complete collection, spoken in Italian, with Italian and English subtitles. (I love the series too). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this - oddly there seemed to be no link to purchase this collection, but the same site had a simiilar collection, which I've ordered. --rossb (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

Arts and entertainment

As brilliant as the information used for 21st century is. Is there a reason or none for why theres barely any for arts and entertainment? Compared to what's been done for the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century#Arts_and_entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.2.7 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest adding to it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to be honest sorry not really helpful I just think you guys are the experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.2.7 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link is 21st century#Arts and entertainment. It certainly is very weak, but not really my strong point. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better to use the section name "Culture and entertainment" of the 20th-century article, instead of "Arts and entertainment", and prefill it with the same subsection headings and {{empty section}} or {{expand section}}, as appropriate, as placeholder for the content; that will make it easier for editors to work on it. There should also be a subsection "Literature", which can refer to 21st century in literature and 21st century in poetry. "Music" can refer to 21st-century classical music. --Lambiam 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, information at Wikipedia is not created by professionals who job it is to write an encyclopedia, it is created by random people, exactly like yourself User:110.151.2.7, because a) something was missing and b) they wanted to see it fixed. That is literally the only two qualifications for making Wikipedia better. A person notices something is inadequate, and fixes it. So, quite literally, there is no one to blame for it being missing except for yourself, because there is no one in the universe who was more responsible than you are to fix it before you noticed it was missing and wanted it fixed. Of course, anyone reading this, if they felt like, could fix it too. However, asking other people and hoping they care enough to fix it is a slow and inefficient process. The faster and easier process is to just fix it yourself. Wikipedia literally only exists because people did that already in other places, and you can help Wikipedia continue to exist by just fixing things that are wrong with it. See Wikipedia:Be bold for more information on this. --Jayron 32 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But note that the OP was not imputing a failure or suggesting anyone was to blame for a lacuna, but merely asking if there was an explanation for this conspicuous disproportionality. --Lambiam 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is that the OP didn't add the information themselves. Also, no one else did. But since the OP is interested in the information, they are at LEAST as likely as anyone else, and almost definitely more likely, to add such information. --Jayron 32 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Hi! I found an unpublished book online. I can read it as a pdf or on a web page. I want to know if I can print it legally. The link is here. Thank you! Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Print it for what use? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@jpgordon Just for individual pleasure reading. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't offer legal advice, but in that case I would have thought it makes no difference whether you're reading it on screen or on paper.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira, thank you for the advice. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could download it to your PC and read it on-screen at your leisure. Then you won't have to consume any trees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could always contact the (well-known) author Kenneth C. Flint and ask him. He approved the online edition you link to (according to the Editing Notes at the end of the book), but may or may not be OK with a copy being printed for personal use: his contact details appear immediately after the 'Title page.' You might also want to contact the hosting website directly, although I can't at first glance see any copyrighting statements on it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A book on the internet is published, even if never printed on paper. The vast majority of contemporary published works are copyrighted, and no formal copyright notice is required. There are a few exceptions, such as works by employees of the U.S. federal government as part of their job duties. Unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, assume that any contemporary work is copyrighted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the author would be the honest thing to do, but if he's made it downloadable he's got no real complaint if someone downloads it - as long as don't try to sell it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 allows for "fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research." It seems clear that printing one copy for personal use in one's own education and research is acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if printing the whole text is considered permissable. In UK public libraries I believe the rule used to be that one could (photo)copy no more than 40%(?) of a book, but I'm no longer current on such matters, having left bookselling and publishing over 35 years ago. However, this strays from the current question. If it were me, I would take the fact of the pdf on the website being downloadable in printable form to be tacit permission to print a single copy strictly for one's own use, but others may differ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 27