Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

Meta horror

Good afternoon. I was wondering : Are there any other meta horror films (complete with actors playing themselfs) that use the metaness for serious horror rather than comedy? The only one i can thing of is Wes Craven's New Nightmare. I'm not sure if Scream counts, because it's more of a comedy. There's also Seed of Chucky, but that's, at least in my opinion, a 100% comedy, not horror. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• TV Tropes has an entire article of films where someone directly threatens the audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12839-58 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Metacinema. I remember the ending of the original Tales from the Crypt. Pretty funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

More an instance of breaking the fourth wall than meta in the sense that the work refers to itself as if existing in its fictional universe.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait! I renember another one. The 2014 version of The town that feared sundown. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually named The Town That Dreaded Sundown. From our plot description of its 1976 predecessor, I gather that that one too ended with a meta twist.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Opinion

Sorry if this question is too subjective, but does it also seem like the TV Tropes entry for Enough was written by a mysoginist? Particually the YMMW page. What the hell is so wrong about abused women taking back charge from abusive husbands and not taking crap from them?! ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What is "YMMW"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it originated as an initialism for "Your Mileage May Vary", although I do not understand the significance of the phrase in this context. When you visit a TV Tropes page for a film, like this one for Enough, you see a horizontal ribbon under the film's title with clickable buttons, one of which is labeled

 ⛽ YMMV 

It leads to a page with another list of tropes allegedly discernible in the plot of the film.  ​‑‑Lambiam 02:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

As you can read above, we don't answer requests for opinions.  ​‑‑Lambiam 02:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

TV Tropes pages (like Wikipedia) have their own discussion pages (it´s above the title of the movie at the right). "YMMW" means that the tropes of the page are considered subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-15028-18 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Australian Grand Prix article check please

Hi, I'm new to the vocabulary and names in the area. I started this page and GalacticVelocity08 expanded it (thanks!!!). I would appreciate if you could expand it in next 1-2 days:

• n:Formula 1 season opens at Australian Grand Prix
• n.b. docs: 'inverted pyramid' article structure at the site

Possibly CC Island92 and DH85868993 as edited some page here about related topic.

I was confused because unclear which drivers were kicked out on which days and why.

Many thanks.

Regards, Gryllida 03:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to do my best to explain this:

No drivers are eliminated or kicked out. There are three stages of qualifying: Q1, Q2, and Q3. All drivers participate in Q1. The top 16 drivers from Q1 advance to Q2. The six drivers who were "eliminated" still participate in the race, they just don't advance to the following rounds. Therefore, whoever finishes between 16th - 22nd in Q1 starts the race from that position. This is repeated for Q2 (six drivers "eliminated, 11th - 16th determined from whoever finishes in those position during Q2), and the top ten drivers move on to Q3. The finishing order of Q3 determines the starting order for 1st to 10th.

There were drivers who did not participate in practice sessions/qualifying due to technical issues or crashes. This does not mean that they were eliminated. Drivers who didn't participate in qualifying can still take part in the race with permission from the oversight body, which is almost always granted. That's what happened for Stroll, Verstappen, and Sainz this weekend. this article might explain it better than I did, and I'd be happy to try to clarify further! GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, GalacticVelocity08. This is still cryptic to me but at least starting to clear up. Now information is in the article I linked, but sources are missing for it. I guess you took the information from the Wikipedia page. What are the best sources to include with that, to support the added information? In Wikinews, when a page is in edit mode, there is a 'Source' button to add a source, it adds it in the correct format (or tries to). Gryllida 09:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

And to add to the complications, two drivers did qualify but failed to take the start: Nico Hülkenberg and Oscar Piastri, with mechanical failure and a crash on the way to the grid respectively. So we have: 22 drivers show up; 19 that managed to qualify; 22 that were permitted to start; and 20 that actually went racing. ~2026-31477-0 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ooh. How come 19 qualified, but even more (i.e., 20>19) went racing? I thought on Saturday they have to 'qualify' and only those who 'qualified' are allowed to 'race' on Sunday. Gryllida 09:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Technically, drivers have to set a time within 107% of the fastest time to demonstrate that they and their car are capable of meaningfully participating in the event. But there are occasions when this doesn't happen. These are the three drivers that GalacticVelocity08 mentioned. They were unable to set a representative time in the qualifying session, but were able to convince the race organisers that they would have been able to (either by having set a good enough lap time in an earlier practice session, having a teammate in an identical car that was clearly fast enough, or by having extensive experience with an F1 car and the Melbourne circuit).

The rule is there to stop obviously hopeless entries from being a danger to those around them (back in the 90s you had as many as 30+ drivers turn up for 26 spots in the race, many of them with machinery that was genuinely awful) but nowadays, with a more consistent grid, this isn't as much of a problem. Besides, no one would have been happy for Max Verstappen, a 4 time World Champion and in maybe the 3rd fastest car, to go home on Saturday afternoon because he happened to have a spin before he completed a lap. Much more entertaining to let him start at the back 20th and race up to 5th. ~2026-31477-0 (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Soon, I will be going to search for sources for the page linked above, as someone expanded it but did not add sources. Help would be most appreciated as now I will be away for around 10 hours for sleep. :-) Gryllida 11:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Christianity and Harry Potter

Harry Potter and His Dark Materials

Regarding the article about the band "Love Sculpture"

Love Sculpture. This article mentions that the group second LP (Forma & Feelings) was released in December 1969. However, this information is not publicly available in the references section. Could one of the contributors clarify the source of this article claim? Historically, the oldest evidence of this record dates back to 1970. The only possible mention of December 1969 comes from an encrypted Google Books file, "Records and Recording - Volume 13 - Page 12," which suggests this date. So, is Wikipedia referencing that magazine, or where else did they get that date from?Oxpetals (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Also posted on the talk page of the article.  ​‑‑Lambiam 08:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Discogs is user-generated, so not a reliable source, but the page for the album mentions an initial release in 1969. --Viennese Waltz 09:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Haha, sorry 😅 I posted that information a while ago. The thing is, up to this point, Wikipedia is the only public article that mentions "December 1969." Regarding what I wrote on Discogs, it's clear that the LP was pressed and recorded in 1969, but not released at that time. However, I suspected that the Wikipedia article was connected to an issue of "Records & Recording" magazine (not available to read). This would have confirmed "December 1969" as the official release date. That's why I asked how you all came across that information. Oxpetals (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging User:Derek R Bullamore, who wrote a significant part of the band's article (although not the bit about the album's release date) and might know more. --Viennese Waltz 13:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is Derek. The only time I added any meaningful information was in June 2009 (and that had nothing relating to that album's issue). As you can see that was a long time ago, and the date given then for the release of Forms and Feelings was January 1970. It was eventually altered to December 1969 here in June 2023 by an IP (surprise surprise, no source was given). It took me long enough to look back and locate what I have given so far here - I will take your word for the fact that only Wikipedia shows a December 1969 release date. Frankly I would find a reliable source that states January 1970 and insert both details in the article. Then, at least ideally (ha ha), anyone wishing to change that would need to provide a source that gives the earlier date.

You could read through the editing history of Love Sculpture's article and note just how much claptrap has been weaved in and out over the years. I am old enough to remember when both of their albums were released - he says, editing whilst smoking a gnarled old pipe, stroking a wheezy old dog whilst wearing zip-up slippers (me, not the mutt) ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The liner notes to a 2008 CD reissue of the album state that: "Such legal wrangling delayed the release of the record still further, with the album finally appearing in February 1970 as 'Forms and Feelings' (Parlophone PCS 7090)", see . --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, well done - that pretty much tops and tails it. Probably those liner notes are as good as anything, in the circumstances, to use as the reliable source. Back to my pipe; roaring fire; annoyingly ticking, and bells ringing every few seconds, albeit hopelessly out of time grandfather clock; and my steam driven telly, which is currently showing "The Woodentops" as part of Watch with Mother. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia was the second source that suggested "late 1969." That means the only thing left to clarify is what "Records & Recording" says, and the information in the Wikipedia article would either be completely discarded or reconsidered. When I asked Google Books, they suggested I consult the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I'll look there if I'm lucky. I know that this magazine is apparently originally British, but I'll see how much they can help me. If anyone knows of a British information archive that might have this magazine, their recommendation would be very helpful. Oxpetals (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Records and Recording, Volume 12, Number 11, of August 1970, has a list that I think starts on page 8, under the heading
new releases 1.

Page 12 has a section:

PARLOPHONE

Love Sculpture. Forms and Feelings. S PCS 7090.

Joe Venuti's Blue Four. PMC 7091.

Hollies sing Hollies. Tape S 8X-PCS 7092; Musicassette S TD-PCS 7092.

No year is given in this section. Some entries in other sections do have 1969.  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I did enter "which British information archive would hold past copies of the magazine Records & Recording circa 1969/1970 vintage ?" in Google AI mode and got a few potential suggestions; including the British Library, Rockmine Music Paper Archive, World Radio History, and the British Newspaper Archive (BNA). The National Archives' Discovery Catalogue was also mentioned. How productive any of these would prove is not for me to say, but they are all worth exploring if you need the definitive. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you think some issue of Records and Recording may contain different information than the one from which I copied the Parlophone section above?  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be good to investigate. After all, the albums mentioned were definitely not new releases on August 11th. Oxpetals (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The entries explicitly mentioning 1969 were of releases that were at least seven months old, but they were still included.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Does that mean R&R Vol 12 and 13 are mid-1970s issues? Do you know the publication interval for this magazine? Oxpetals (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Films with troops of Amazons on horses

In the beach battle of Wonder Woman (2017 film), we see Amazon cavalry (so, many of them) on horses. Which other films contain this element? (Google and AI results are less reliable than persons who have seen such films, I suppose) --KnightMove (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The trailer for War Goddess (1973), aka The Amazons, shows them on horseback. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This article about the documentary Amazon Women Warriors depicts them firing their bows on horseback. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The poster for Les Amazons du temple d'or (presumably Golden Temple Amazons), listed but not linked in Jesús Franco filmography, shows Amazons wielding their weapons on horseback. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen this already, but just in case, our article at Amazons has a section on modern media: Amazons#Film_and_television that has a list of titles you could peruse in your research. Matt Deres (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks you both. --KnightMove (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Help to identify music

https://www.ri-prese.com/ri-ve/clips/ri-2262-07/

ri-prese.com is a community where the users upload their video footages of Venice in past years.

This footage is a part of a longer film where the audio comment is in German.

I am interested what music is used in this footage, since Shazam dont recognize.

Is there someone that can kindly help to identify?

Many, many and many thanks in advance for all you can do!!! ~2026-16378-24 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm ashamed at Shazam. Even I, a classical music ultra-nerd, know that's "Sweet Caroline" by Neil Diamond. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Shazam recognises specific recordings, not generic melodies. I'm not so sure that's "Sweet Caroline" myself. --Viennese Waltz 10:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

... and my Shazam did recognize this specific recording as "Sweet Caroline" from the album je t'aime 6 - Traummelodien (1978) recorded by the Orchester Anthony Ventura (Werner Becker). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Paralympics closing

Who was that 1-legged dancer? She's gorgeous. Also Sofia blowing out the "eternal" flame.

Dissapoining all the athletes are not on the floor dancing righ now (like london 2012).Psephguru (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Was she wearing pantyhose? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

She was there twice. You'd have to have googgles to see that.Psephguru (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Would having googly eyes do?  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)}

Maybe we can google it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

By chance, was it Giorgia Greco? ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)