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 14

What is the shortest-lived F1 team in the 21st century? What is the shortest-lived F1 team in terms of time of existence?

In terms of races entered, what is the shortest lived team of the 21st century? Also, what is the shortest-lived F1 team in terms of time existing? Have any F1 teams existed for less than a year? 49.149.143.51 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the current teams, Haas F1 Team has been around the shortest, since the start of the 2016 season (i.e. they had competed in 41 races before the start of the current season). A few teams have only been around for one season in the 21st century, including Brawn GP which was only in existence in 2009 but still managed to to win the drivers and constructors championships in its 17 races. Granted, they were not built from scratch. Manor Racing (2016) also lasted one year and Midland F1 Racing (2006) did not even complete a full season (they were re-named Spyker F1 for the last three races of that year). --Xuxl (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically though, didn't Manor Racing exist for two seasons? If I recall correctly, in 2015 they were Manor in all but name, as they used the Marussia name only for contractual reasons, they were otherwise always referred to as Manor. Kind of like in 2010 when Sauber were referred to as Sauber even though they were technically still called "BMW Sauber" at the time. 49.149.143.51 (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US F1 Team June 2009 - April 2010. Nanonic (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the US F1 team never made it into a race (as opposed to the others cited above). --Xuxl (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brawn GP only existed for the 2009 season. They did win the constructors title and Jenson Button won the drivers title. Not too shabby. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I missed that Xuxl has already mentioned them. Good work on your part X. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the MasterCard Lola team of 1997 as the shortest ever - failed to qualify for their first race, withdrew from their second before the start of practice, withdrew from the championship thereafter. I'd suggest HRT Formula 1 Team as the shortest-lived F1 team of the 21st century at 3 seasons. Haas are at 2.5 seasons and counting (but likely to continue), and the others suggested are just renames of previous teams, not new teams (Tyrrell > BAR > Honda > Brawn > Mercedes). -mattbuck (Talk) 01:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were other very short-lived teams back in the 1970s, like McGuire, which entered one car in one race in 1977, driven by the team's founder, Brian McGuire, and failed to even pre-qualify. Formula 1 was a very different world back then, however. Xuxl (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

should I refer to a wikiproject, or ask another wikiproject for input?

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Is this obvious? I earlier asked if some shows had too much of WP:TRIVIALCAT, but the edits seemed to died down, since. Then I came across a movie/ film, where the info box earlier says it was based on Just Dance and another unrelated name when I edited it out. So if I come across other pages/ articles and from its talk pages has different wikiprojects placed there, do I go to that wikiproject about my small concern. Other than where I first asked at? Like if the wikiproject is apart of music/ songs and something about cartoons, etc. But the question or concern was posted on "cartoons" and the edits are in both, would I notify the other. When the strange edits are slow.. i.e. a few times a day, or only once. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Help desk might be ... helpful. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

UEFA_European_Championship#Results

Here From the article (under the map of Europe): "Map of winners. Germany: twice as West Germany and once as united Germany, Russia as Soviet Union and Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia". Why not "Czechia and Slovakia as Czechoslovakia"?Ericdec85 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because UEFA and FIFA consider Czechia the successor of Czechoslovakia, and Slovakia a separate team. It also doesn't say: "Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and a dozen more countries as Soviet Union". See List of men's national association football teams#Former national football teams. --Theurgist (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. This has been discussed several times on the article's talk page. The answer is that "UEFA and FIFA consider the Czech Republic to be one of the successors to the record of the former Czechoslovakia; they also consider Slovakia to be a successor, but since Slovakia has not reached the final of the European Championship as an independent nation (whereas the Czech Republic did in 1996), we don't list them in the table." --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to FIFA, the Czech Republic has 9 appearances in the World Cup (which includes 8 as Czechoslovakia), while Slovakia has just 1 (independently in 2010). I think UEFA treats them the same way. I'm not arguing whether this is fair or not. The Czechoslovak squad which won the Euro Championship in 1976 was composed mainly of Slovak players. --Theurgist (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the point, the "why don't they" is insignificant. All that matters is they do. Somebody, who's job it was to make these sorts of decisions, for reasons of their own, decided that the Czech records would include Czechoslovakia, but that the Slovak records would not. That any Rando on the internet, long after that decision-maker made this decision, should have some reason why they shouldn't, is irrelevant and pointless. Decisions are made and history moves forward, ex-post-facto rationales have no bearing on it at all. --Jayron 32 02:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity are you saying that previous discussions on Talk:UEFA European Championship establish this? Of so, that's quite relevant. Can you either link to the discussions or sources that establish it? I found where the quote came from Talk:UEFA European Championship#Finalists table, but it doesn't provide any links to previous discussions, nor any sources that establish it. I found other discussions where the issue came up including Talk:UEFA European Championship/Archive 1#West Germany or Germany?, Talk:UEFA European Championship/Archive 1#Current editwar, Talk:UEFA European Championship/Archive 1#USSR and Yugo, Talk:UEFA European Championship/Archive 1#predecessors but none of them seem to establish that fact. The one source I saw mentioned that was potentially relevant is [1] which establishes that UEFA may consider Czechia as a successor to Czechoslovakia, but provides no clarity on Slovakia. Actually I don't even see where anyone made the claim that UEFA or FIFA consider Slovakia to be a successor to Czechoslovakia (on the UEFA championship talk page), before it was simply stated as fact recently. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked a bit wider and found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 99#UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Czech Republic & Slovakia Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Continuous editing of the notes on qualified teams, Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification#Slovakia's appearance at the 2010 world cup is their first and not their 9th, Talk:UEFA#Slovakia, Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying/Archive 1#Slovakia's record in past Euros, Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 5#Edit request from 123.20.47.192, 20 September 2011, Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1#slovakia's WC history, Talk:Czechoslovakia national football team#Czechoslovakian football history = Czech Republic football history?, Talk:UEFA Euro 2016/Archive 1#Slovakia and Czech Republic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 31#FIFA attributes the honours of Czechoslovakia to both Czechia and Slovakia but am no clearer.

From reading these discussions which linked to sources (but not checking the sources since I can't be bothered digging up all the archives), it sounds like both FIFA and UEFA have at times listed Slovakia as a successor to Czechoslovakia e.g. by listing Czechoslovakia's previous records as Slovakia's. But at other times they have not. The same page seems to chop and change as to whether it lists Czechoslovakia's records under Slovakia, let alone other pages or info. Heck even Czechia doesn't always seem to inherit Czechoslovakia's records. Notably none of these link to any official FIFA or UEFA position that I saw. (I think there is one for Serbia.)

BTW I also came across Talk:UEFA Euro 2016#Slovakia debut?, Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification#Qualification table, Talk:Serbia national football team/Archive 1#Only Serbia, Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 4#Successor states/Inheritors of records, Talk:UEFA#disputed/contradiction section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 100#RfC on a football-related article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 21#Result maps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 21#Successor nations, Talk:Northern Ireland national football team#First Game, etc and a few more I read but seemed too unimportant to link but ignored these as while they may make claims, they don't seem to link to any relevant sources for the Slovakia issue. (Some do provide sources for others including Czechia.) This actually sounded hopeful but there was nothing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 61#UEFA Euro qualification (again).

Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm still not going to dig up every archive page, looking more carefully most of the above discussions rely on the same pages anyway. And it may be there was only on set of pages that changed, FIFA's possibly sometimes in 2011. So as an example of what I'm referring to using archive links:

The current FIFA pages only gives Czechia Czechoslovakia's records as noted above [2]/[3] [4]/[5]. (These didn't archive that well, but look for "FIFA World Cup".) However in the past, Slovakia (and Czechia) received Czechoslovakia's records [6] [7], note that these are older versions of the link after the / earlier. Meanwhile for the 2010 World Cup, FIFA produced this document [8] which says Slovakia is a newcomer while concurrently (not exact dates, but someone in one of the linked discussions says it was the case) still saying they had 8 previous appearances on their page about Slovakia [9]/[10].

Then these pages only has records for Czech Republic from 1992 onwards [11]. Slovakia had 1939 to 1944 then 1992 onwards [12]. And no, this wasn't because they were missing stuff from those intermediate years [13]. The live score pages that replaced (they redirect) those match pages have scores from 1903 for Czech Republic [14] including the Czechoslovakia period. But for Slovakia only the 1939 to 1944 period [15] then the 1992 onwards as before. (Not a great fan of archive.is/today/whatever given their history here on wikipedia but needs must for these pages.)

The current UEFA pages gives neither team Czechoslovakia's records [16] [17]. However in the 2016 season pages to this day, the Czech Republic's best result was "winners 1976 (as Czechoslovakia)" [18] while Slovakia "never qualified" [19]. Maybe this shouldn't be that surprising since UEFA also says the Czech Republic FA itself joined UEFA in 1954 and FIFA in 1907 [20] while the Slovakia FA in 1993 and 1994 [21].

Meanwhile these history pages do effectively give the records to both Czech Republic and Slovakia although are clear when it was as Czechoslovakia [22] [23]. These would actually be decent pages were it not for the fact that UEFA was just as schizophrenic as FIFA about whether or not to count Czechoslovakia under Slovakia and Czech Republic.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electra myth

Why is the Electra story, which is barely even about Electra, so popular? The article said it was (with a source), but fails to explain why. I don't understand why it is such a big deal]]. Why are there so many plays about the story? It can understand why Antigone or Oedipus Rex would be popular, but why Electra? Is there any reason why scholars and playwrights are interested in this?

@Mr. Guye: [OP]

In part because the Electra myth represents the psychological phenomenon known as "Electra complex" -- a woman's unresolved love for her father that harms her relationships with other men (counterpoint analog to Oedipus complex). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

George Lucas and the Expanded Universe

Dear All

Ich have heard that George Lucas directly influenced works in the EU, like he for example changed stuff in the script to the comic "Dark Empire" and apparently also picked the writers and artists for the series. I was wondering, if there is a list which features every advice he gave or every work in the EU he was involved.

Thank you for your answers

With kind regards--2A02:120B:C3CC:FC50:4C28:41EE:BD1E:9A6F (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get any answers here, you may have better luck at Wookieepedia's Knowledge Bank. Staecker (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--2A02:120B:C3CC:FC50:48DE:60DD:F10:AD43 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Opera Movies

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I am looking for space operas, mostly in the form of movies and was curious, if there is a way to find all movies of this subgenre of science fiction. Are there maybe non-American space opera movies? Are there lists featuring the titles of most space opera movies?

Thank you for your answers

With kind regards--2A02:120B:C3CC:FC50:4C28:41EE:BD1E:9A6F (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has List of space opera media#Film, television, and video and Category:Space opera films. The definition of space opera varies. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vince_McMahon#Feud_with_D-Generation_X,_Donald_Trump_and_Bobby_Lashley_(2005–2007)

The article is written as if the fight with Trump was actually real. Better to explain that all was faked and it was just a funny entertaining show. It might confuse the future generations! Ericdec85 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of professional wrestling's convention of kayfabe, such an explanation is unnecessary, as it's all faked. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 90.202.163.217 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is an article on a person, not an article on a wrestling event or something like that. IMO wrestling articles, but also some articles on more classical fiction are sometimes very bad in the way they mix fiction and reality. For this particular article, consider that the previous section mentions this:

McMahon purchased long-time rival promotion World Championship Wrestling (WCW) in March 2001 from AOL Time Warner and signed many wrestlers from the organization.

There's clearly nothing kayfabe about that. I didn't bother to read the area of complaint that well, but a good example of how to handle fictional content seems to be the next section

On June 11, 2007, WWE aired a segment at the end of Raw that featured McMahon entering a limousine moments before it exploded. The show went off-air shortly after, and WWE.com reported the angle within minutes as though it were a legitimate occurrence, proclaiming that McMahon was "presumed dead".[76] Although this was the fate of the fictional "Mr. McMahon" character, no harm came to the actual person; the "presumed death" of McMahon was part of a storyline.[77] WWE later acknowledged to CNBC that he was not truly dead.

Note that I'm not saying that the article always needs to be clearly say something is fictional everytime it's mentioned or needs to go to this extreme. It just needs to be clear from the context that something is fictional. It may very well be that most of the time it should be clear that a car exploding in the wrestling ring is just kayfabe and it's normally not needed to specify. (Although care still needs to be taken. For example, something may really go wrong and someone could be injured. They may later given an interview somewhere where they talk about this. Alternatively something may "go wrong" and someone is "injured" and they give an interview where they talk about this in character. It needs to be clear which is which to the reader.)

Trump could have obviously really had a feud with Vince McMahon, like he seems to have a feud with so many people e.g. Megyn Kelly. (Well we obviously don't know for sure how he really feels about it, e.g. how much of it is simply part of his attempt to get elected and play to his base etc, as a topical encyclopedic article, it's expected that this is something readers will understand. And if evidence ever emerges that he actually always loved Megyn Kelly, we would write about it. So by the same token, if it's clear that a feud between Trump and McMahon was simply kayfabe, it should be clear to a current reader with some familiarity of wrestling and kayfabe but not the particulars of that "feud" that it is kayfabe. As said, I didn't bother to read the article well enough to know if it is.)

To give a completely different example, Richard Castle used to IMO have a problem. Some real world books have been published under the name of the fictional character. There are also the books that have been referred to in-universe. In the past, the article mentioned this IIRC, and in a section titled real books had a long list of books without clearly differentiating between those which had actually been published and those which were just referred to (i.e. weren't actually real books). In fact, in some ways it was worse than that, since I believe some of the published books were never referred to in the series yet.

But I seem to recall, and I had a quick look at the article, and while I'm not sure how great it is by wikipedia standards, it looks generally okay to me now. Part of it refer to real world stuff like e.g. opinions of the character, and part of it refer to what is known about the characters life within the fiction and the books also seem to be handled okay. The article doesn't need to specify this is 'fiction' all the time, since it's clear what is fiction.

However that article does have the advantage that it's on a fictional character, unlike the article the OP referred to which is intended to be a biography on a real person and is as with all of us going to die. If he's very unlucky, it could even be in a stunt gone wrong in the wrestling ring. (Although it would seem far less likely than with a wrestler.)

That said, I agree with the comment below the OP either needs to fix it, or at least bring the problem to the article talk page. Not here. I'm not hopeful of it being fixed unless someone is willing to be serious since I've been in ANI etc enough times to know of the disputes in wrestling related articles. So frankly while it's still worth raising on the talk page if you really feel there is a problem, expect even less than normal if you aren't willing to do the work.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think something in Wikipedia needs fixing, be WP:BOLD and do it. If you want to discuss changes prior to making them, the appropriate place is on the article's talk page here. Matt Deres (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Team Epic the Animated Series, translated by...

It turns out that, for one of official English subtitles of Pop Team Epic used by most streaming services (including Crunchyroll), Dico in Japan provided translation into English, and Funimation's English dub is based on that translation. But I noticed that Sentai Filmworks's version of English subtitle (seen on HiDive) uses different translation. Do any of you know who (or what company) handled translation for Sentai? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm answering my own question; it was translated by Jessica Kim at Sentai's in-house team. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

TV Shows Opening title

What was the first TV show that started an episode before the opening title? What I mean is on Blue Bloods and Cheers there would be a scene before the opening title.(Mobile mundo (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The article on this feature, called a cold open, may well shed some light on the subject. --McDoob AU93 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good writeup. Some Youtube checking indicates dramatic shows such as 1964's Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Man from UNCLE were among the first. Star Trek also. For comedies, it was getting pretty common in the 1970s. Barney Miller and WKRP come to mind. I also saw a remark (not in the article) that 1961's The Avengers was one of the first to use a cold open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The cold open is an interesting article. There is a good chance that it is the avengers but I couldn't find the remark on the talk page. (Mobile mundo (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

July 20

List of imaginary characters in fiction

I'm looking for zillions of them, like the rabbit in Harvey or Tyler Durden. Can you help think of some? Also, would this be a viable article if many were not standalones, but rather sections within articles or even black links?

Anyhow, I've stubbed it. If it does not get populated, I will delete it. Please give it a bit before the speedy tag. :)

List of imaginary characters in fiction

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, nearly every character in fiction is imaginary. Or do you mean characters that are imagined by one of the other characters? And would The Unicorn in the Garden qualify? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit in Harvey is named Harvey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is right. This needs definition. Does it simply mean characters imagined by other characters? Or...? HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thurber! Ah, I love Thurber. "Have it your way. You heard a seal bark!"

Yes, characters that are imagined by one of the other characters. Is this viable or an incredibly stupid article? Don't spare my feelings. This is Wikipedia. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add that definition to the beginning of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. It's done. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My more mischievous self was just wondering about adding almost all the characters from the major religious texts. But I don't think I have the courage or energy to take on that fight today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. Who are they? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo is trying to say that religion is fiction. But if it's only characters that characters imagine, that narrows it down considerably. For example, atheists consider God to be fictional, but in the collection of literature called The Bible, God is not fictional. However, there are fictional characters presented within, such as in dream sequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to avoid religion altogether. Adding a god would be opening a real can of worms. And, since the article is about characters in fiction, then religious people would not like adding imaginary characters in relgion that because it implies that the religion is fiction, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base what we write on what people like, but I won't be touching the god thing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be missing my point. If you consider the Bible to be fiction, then God is a fictional character in it - but He's not an imaginary character in it. An imaginary character could be someone appearing in a dream of one of the fictional characters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It's right, of course. I still won't be going near the god thing in that article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary friend has a couple more (mainly in the "See also" section, including Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, of course). The Guardian's "Top 10 imaginary friends in fiction" might help as well. And TV Tropes's entry on "Imaginary Friend" lists a ton of examples (literature, film, comic books, TV, anime, ...) Sounds like a fun list, AF! ---Sluzzelin talk 08:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list, Sluzzelin. Please, someone, add them. I'm pooped. (Of course I mean 'tired'.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy's brother Spike used to talk to cactuses. I don't know if that fits in your definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Were the cacti imaginary? Anna Frodesiak (talk)

No, those cacti were real, and as far as I recall they didn't talk back. However, the lead character Hazel in the webcomic Girls with Slingshots owns a potted cactus which she perceives as conversing with her, often when she's drunk but sometimes apparently not. It is ambiguous as to whether or not other characters also sometimes perceive him to be talking (and performing various actions). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.206.216.248 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather like Hobbes. There would need to be a sublist of ambiguously imaginary characters. (Harvey, in the film version, becomes this when at the end we see a door moved by an unseen force.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of the Peanuts world, Snoopy in particular, are kind of surreal. Snoopy could be said to be his own imaginary character. And you have elements like the "kite-eating tree" which is sometimes presented as anthropomorphic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been wondering about Life of Pi. Can one say for certain that all the zoo animals in the scenes at sea were imaginary, or is this getting too close to religion as well? HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the movie ambiguous about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your wonderful input that helped get this going. Please consider using Talk:List of imaginary characters in fiction for further discussions so others can weigh in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

story rights netflix amazon hulu OTT

friends,.. I wish to know the minimum/average story rights fee for a drama tv show (~10 episodes). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.126.2 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 21