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.

July 6

Help identifying a 1980s TV series

Resolved

I'm trying to identify a 1980s or early 1990s TV series. It featured a lot of car stunts and Remy Julienne was a regular contributer. He peformed the "Dangerous Crossroads" stunt on this series. http://agency.incrediblefeatures.com/event/en/1/110/28-02-1991/MOTORCYCLE,+CAR,+PLANE+PYRAMID+JUMP Others I remember (not by Julienne) were a motorcyle jumping a train lengthways as it came towards the rider; the train crashed through the ramp. The same rider jumped two semis driving nose to tail - there was a ramp on the tail of the second semi and he jumped both lemgthways. There was also a jump of a truck over a canyon. This truck looked like a cement mixer, but I think the mixer part might have been a jet engine. Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can see all of Rémy Julienne's credits listed here: Rémy Julienne. Maybe that will help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the photos you linked... The woman in the red beret is Anna Lisia (I'm not sure how her name is spelled). I remember seeing that during Desert Storm, so that would be 1991. The location of the stunt was France. I remember that clearly as well. If anyone knows how to spell Anna Lisia's name, it should be possible to work out which show Remi Julienne and Anna Lisia were on in 1991. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be The World's Greatest Stunts III (1991), which lists Ana-Alicia and the Remy Julienne stunt team as part of the cast and includes "a simultaneous triple vault involving an airplane, car and motorcycle". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that certainly looks like it thank you. IMDB gives very little detail on these programs. I remember watching them in Australia pre 1993 (when I left) so you've cracked it! --TrogWoolley (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Luckily, nobody got julienned in that stunt. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you have suggestions for historical figures who could be characters in my book series?

We don't do this

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, it`s me again just wondering if any of you had suggestions for historical figures that could be characters in my book series. Which is set in the 1960`s and is like the league of extraordinary gentlemen only with historical figures instead of fictional characters. Many i`m looking for six historical figures to be part of the justice league type organization and one notorious historical figure of the 60`s to be the villian. THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.226.211 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted duplicate Rojomoke (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

July 7

Facebook help

Sorry if this is the wrong place ... I have fully protected David Dorfman due to a dispute concerning his date of birth. The only reference being offered is a Facebook page, purportedly belonging to the actor. I have been offered a screenshot on my talk page which says it's July 2nd (7/2 or 2/7), and on the article's talk page a link from the same page which apparently says February 7th (2/7 or 7/2). I have been unable to verify either link, nor the owner of the Facebook page; I obviously don't see the same information as the others. I suspect it's either because I'm wrongly geolocated, or because I don't have a Facebook account. I am extremely sceptical that this is not an imposter's account, but I would appreciate it if any regular editor can verify either or both dates, or the owner of the account, so I can see who if anyone is supplying misinformation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple dispute over a birth date is grounds to fully protect an article? And to disable all edits? Really? Seems a bit much. Not like this is some controversial actor/page, either. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I'm comfortable with, but the obvious option to stop this edit war is to semi the article and block the user whose every edit has been to revert. I note that almost every edit this year, some 150 or so edits, has been this edit war, and there's no sign of it stopping. Unless it can be verified, which it hasn't to date, policy says this information should be removed and person who keeps adding it should be blocked (I haven't yet ruled this out). I chose the least worse option for now, and am keen to find a solution, any solution. My other concern at this time is that we may be potentially using an impersonator's account as a reference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not friends with Dorfman on FB, so I can only see a limited amount of info. That said, there are a number of posts from other people that I can see who are wishing him a happy birthday on February 6th and 7th from a number of years past. Dismas|^(talk) 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is useful to know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Gale's Biography in Context: "Full name, David Benjamin Dorfman; born February 7, 1993, in Los Angeles, CA; father a dentist." Gale gives the source citation as: ""David Dorfman." Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television. Vol. 84. Detroit: Gale, 2008. Biography in Context. Web. 8 July 2016." I can email this to you, if you want. John M Baker (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh that's fantastic. If there's any further information, John M Baker, I would like an email, but otherwise I consider this to be a good enough source, and you a reputable enough fellow, to have finally sorted this out. Thanks! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it, but I've emailed you the full article so you will have it if questions arise. John M Baker (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Castlevania’s name

How was Castlevania entitled? Is it a blend of castle & Transylvania? --Romanophile (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Jane Adventures - Ian & Barbara not aging

The IP hopper is recommended to find a chat room for this sort of thing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the Sarah Jane Adventures episode Death of the Doctor, Sarah Jane Smith says that Ian and Barbara Chesterton never aged. Not since the '60s. What did she mean that they never aged, since the 1960s? 31.49.30.10 (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Once again you are trying to evade blocks - please stop. David J Johnson (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would take that to mean that the characters appeared to be of the same age they were 50 years ago in the series. It's a typical device in fiction to have characters that don't age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it usually applies to all the characters in the fictions concerned: in this instance only Ian and Barbara have apparently not aged, while all others – including other Companions – have and do. (Timelord regenerations obviously don't count.) In the context of the Doctor Who Universe, this remains for the moment an unexplained mystery, only mentioned this once, which potentially could be explained in the future if the script writers ever choose to do so. I myself can, on the spur of the moment, think of two potential explanations plausible in the context of the series. Perhaps I'll mention them to Neil Gaiman the next time I see him! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.223.127 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting the scriptwriter is as likely as anything to answer your question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if OP contacted the correct script writer. Russell T Davies wrote the episode that they mention. Not Gaiman. Dismas|^(talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, Davies is a gay man, and Gaiman is a straight Gaiman. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Length of time for correspondence

A couple/few weeks ago, I wrote to Today (U.S. TV program), CBS This Morning and Good Morning America. How long does it take for them to get back to me?2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly never. I'm sure they get lots and lots of letters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing what you wrote to them about would help. Some situations require a response within certain guidelines - others do not, and might never actually get a response. Wymspen (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The days when all correspondence was (1) answered, and (b) promptly, are, sadly, (4) long gone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case in Australia, but Britons are more conscientious. We have the Citizens' Charter and Codes of Practice which ensure that letters are acknowledged within a set timescale, and if the matter cannot be resolved immediately then a timescale for action is given. There are regular reports setting out, for each head of the code, what the timescale is and the percentage of matters resolved within the relevant time. Even the train companies give a percentage breakdown of the number of trains running to time. 86.176.127.7 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the BBC is required to respond to even the most bizarre correspondence they might get? What a waste of postage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No - the requirements to respond generally relate to complaints and similar issues, not to every single letter or email. Wymspen (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to the above American TV shows about donating items to their studios.2604:2000:7113:9D00:CDEE:E2C8:B362:33BB (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characters who are never seen, but are not "unseen characters"

Up above I wrote "Non-existent non-characters that do not appear in a movie or TV show have no feelings". That got me thinking. In some shows, someone who never appears is talked about in various episodes. We know their name, their relationship to the real character, and sundry other things about them. The wives and family of the MASH characters are good examples. Over time, we got to build up mental pictures of what sort of people they are.

Are these called "unseen characters"? I suspect not, because that applies to people whose very existence is a major structural part of the plot, such as in Rebecca (novel). An unseen character is one who, though not seen, "influences the action of the play". The people I'm talking about could easily be written out of the script without damage to the plot (it could be just "the folks back home" rather than "my wife Peg and my two sons Chip and Spud"). But they're in the script (in a minor way) and hence we are aware of them.

How would they be classified? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would call them unseen characters. It's just F. C. Green's stipulation that they play a significant role. Columbo's wife is listed, even though she doesn't help his investigations, as I recall (were there any exceptions?). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're called "silent characters" in The Archers, but, as far as I can tell, that usage is unique to that show. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As The Archers is a radio programme, "unseen" would describe all its characters... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

No Way Out (1987 film)

Hello everyone! Can anybody help me with this issue:

I've got some questions and comments respectively, concerning the witnesses to Farrell's affair and Farrell's secret call before that:

"Donovan brought two witnesses to the Pentagon who had seen "Yuri" with Susan during their romantic weekend. Their description was of an average man and they were led through the Pentagon to identify him."

That sentence was confusing for me since the witnesses are led to Donovon to "give a full description of" the lover; they don't know yet that this one is working in the Pentagon, right? – So why should they then be led through the Pentagon to identify "Jury"?! Also, Farrell's clandestine phone call (to whom???) before the recognition by the witnesses is not mentioned.

I'd be very glad about any comments! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article, the witnesses were brought to the Pentagon to meet Donovan, and while there they see Farrell by chance. —Tamfang (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an assumption about the meaning of that phrase, which is not necessarily what it means. You have assumed that the reason for leading them through the Pentagon was in order for them to identify the person. It can equally mean that they were led through the Pentagon (for no particular reason) and that led to them identifying the person concerned, more or less by chance. Wymspen (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I understood this section quite similarly, which is why I already changed the wording. Yet, it still remains unclear to me whom Farrell called before being exposed by the witnesses.--Hubon (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wymspen, how do you disagree with me? —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

Downloading recent films for free

Is or are there websites that allow you to download films for free like for example Zootopia, Pixels, Big Hero 6 and etc? Donmust90 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're illegal as heck, so we're not going to help you find them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every illegally downloaded film helps to fund terrorists. I'm not going to allow ISIS to gain another rocket launcher, thank you very much. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you get them for free then nobody makes any money from you, terrorists included. They would have to sell the pirated moves for some small amount to fund anything. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They would make money through advertising on the website, and malware/ransomware bundled with the downloads. Definitely possible to make money. But the statement that terrorists are funded by illegal film downloads is of course complete codswallop. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would agree with the above IP. Where is the evidence that film piracy funds terrorism? Fgf10 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that 131 shows up where you do - and with the same attitude. Or is that typical for all you residents of Cardiff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the ip above (or all 300,000+ residents of Cardiff), but I don't have an attitude, I just expect people to present facts. I guess people here in Wales (and the wider UK) aren't as gullible as Americans. Or maybe it's just you that has a problem presenting facts/has an attitude. And if you're accusing me of sockpuppetry, just say it. Fgf10 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're both at Cardiff University, and seem to be tag-teaming each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, someone else at an institution of 50,000+ people shares my opinion. Drats, you've discovered my secret identity! To the batmobile! Fgf10 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And at nearly the exact same times, yet. Possibly coincidental. But you're now on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am quaking in my boots. You've really reached rarified heights of trolling. It's almost entertaining. Fgf10 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The sources I'm seeing for the claim that downloading funds turr'ism! are only merely suggesting that terrorists are selling pirated DVDs (not uploading movies for download in general) or making vague insinuations regarding counterfeiting in general. It honestly sounds like "9-11 was bad" style propaganda started by the entertainment industry ("We want to shatter the illusion of DVD pirates as harmless 'Del Boy' characters," said a spokesman for the Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness). The idea that every illegally downloaded film helps fund terrorists has to be a joking exaggeration. You'd have to prove that all the sites out there (some of which predate Daesh, many started in western nations, and most of which are rather proud of attitudes that terrorists hate in westerners) were started by terrorists, that all advertisements on those sites were effective (people who are tech savvy enough to pirate are generally smart enough to use adblocker or at least know to not click the ads), and that every movie out there comes with ransomware (which would be a plain lie). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy is its own kind of terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, marginally reducing corporate profits by seeing if a movie is worth buying before spending money is totally comparable to murdering poor children because they didn't swear fealty loudly enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are aware there is actually a definition of terrorism: "the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim". Which of cource in no way covers film/software piracy. But of course feel free to ignore reality as it pleases you. Fgf10 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you likewise, Mr. "For great fusstice". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr actually. But I'll let that pass. Since you've given no factual reply, I'll just assume you've retracted your ridiculous statement as the nonsense that it is. Fgf10 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stand by my suspicion that the IP is you in disguise. But he could also just be someone trying to get you into trouble. So we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the UK, you can download the BBC iPlayer desktop application from the BBC website, and then download a small number of films and a much larger selection of other BBC TV programmes from the iPlayer section of the Website. This is free (and one is not required to have a UK TV Licence), but the downloads have to be watched within a set period (varying for each item, but typically up to a month) before they expire. The choices are mostly limited to recent new or repeated broadcast programmes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.26.60 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask yourself why they would offer their movies for free, since they wouldn't make any money that way. The one exception I could think of is if they might offer one of a series of movies (like Harry Potter), hoping you would be hooked and pay for the rest. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book database

I'm looking for a particular science fiction comic book series from the late '60s or early '70s. I've already asked here a couple of times, but nobody could help based on my description. Is there an image database online that I can search by genre AND era? Second choice: a book covering this particular area. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be what you need; (free) registration required to access some features: ComicBookDB.

Note: Googling your title reveals several other 'comic book databases' --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]