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.

May 4

Dogtooth (film)

Image:Dogtooth(2009)_poster.jpg

The title Dogtooth of the 2009 Yorgos Lanthimos film clearly refers to the canine teeth: The (adult) children are told they are ready to leave home when they lose their first permanent canine (dogtooth).

Now, the theatrical release poster of the film appears to show a “dogtooth wave”. Basic mathematical waveforms include the sine wave, the triangular wave, the square wave, and the sawtooth wave. It’s tempting to play with the words and imagine a “dogtooth wave” (sounds a lot like “sawtooth wave”) shaped like two canine teeth pointing in opposite directions. And surely this is what the filmmakers are doing?

Indeed, in the release poster, a waveform very worthy of the “dogtooth wave” name appears in the same diagram as a sine-like wave. Surely this is intentional? Any references to confirm? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled dogtooth poster explained and was told (among other things) "The Dogtooth poster, designed by Vasilis Marmatakis, features three intersecting lines, representing the distorted views of the film's protagonists, and a lot of negative space. This design choice is a visual representation of the characters' skewed perception of the world, a key theme in the film, according to an interview with Marmatakis. The lines also subtly evoke the shape of a dog's teeth, nodding to the film's title, according to Pixartprinting." Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

Emergency addresses

Been watching Emergency on METV and wondering if the addresses and cross streets were real. -- DMc75771

I've never seen the show. Do you know what city it's set in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a reality show? In which case the streets are real. (I doubt they would broadcast people's real addresses.) Or is it Emergency! which is fiction?Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The exterior shots of Emergency! were filmed on real streets, but the street names used in the series are generally fictional. For more, see Emergency! § Setting. ‑‑Lambiam 10:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's on METV, then it is indeed Emergency!. Julie London was part of the main cast. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey World Championships

Why top-level IIHF World Championships are never held in the US or Canada, despite that these nation's teams are both very successful in that tournament? All championships since 1998 have been held in Europe? And why are they never held in countries that often get promoted and relegated between top tier and Division I-A? --40bus (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some wild-assed guesses, which others are welcome to shoot down.

(1) Since the USA and Canada are already saturated with ice hockey, whereas it's much less prominent in Europe, perhaps the IIHF want to hold their Championship in Europe to promote the sport more there.

(2) The IIHF is headquartered in Europe (in Zurich), and its playing rules are a little different from those of the NHL in the USA and Canada (including rink dimensions), so it makes more sense to hold the Championships in the region where their rules already apply. If IIHF-rules games were played in North America, many NA spectators would doubtless be confused – perhaps fights would ensue amongst them, rather than just on the rink where I gather fights are expected. Moreover, NHL rinks would have to be modified to fit IIHL dimensions, which would be a pain.

(3) The IIHF tournament is held at the same time as North America's NHL Stanley Cup playoffs, so there would be unacceptable top-level game congestion if the former were held in the USA or Canada. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.101.226 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 3 is the correct one. And as a result, many of the best Canadian and US players are not available for the tournament (and some European players as well), as their teams are still involved in the NHL playoffs. The two countries still manage to field competitive teams from other available players, however, but most fans realize the talent level is not as strong as it could be. In contrast, the IIHF World Junior Championship is played in North America more often than not, normally between Christmas and the first days of the new year, and is hugely popular there but not as much in Europe. Xuxl (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to why the World Baseball Classic is played in March rather than during any of the months from April through October. If the IIHF wants better participation, they should hold the tournament sometime in the summer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

platekompaniet.no

I've recently found a website that sells DVD and many other things called Platekompaniet also known as platekompaniet.no and I found a DVD that is selling for 259.00 NOK which is £18.80 in UK pounds. However though I don't know to order from it since it's a Norwegian website.^[1] Matthew John Drummond (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you ask about this a while back? Also, I wonder what the Norwegian word is for "bootleg"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn’t also the website sells official licensed DVD's, Blu-rays, CD and much more. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standardized e-commerce webpage. You hit the huge dark button to the right so that the caddie takes your choice in. When viewing the caddie' content an other dark button will direct you to the payment options if needed. Also: with most web browser you may find a translate menu option clicking the right button on your mouse. Be certainly carefull with the payment option nonetheless. --Askedonty (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About that payment option: there's no secure international standard for e-commerce payments. The methods supported by a retailer in country A may not match with those supported by a bank in country B. People are working on that, so it should get better soon. At least in Europe, but Norway and the UK can join if they wish. Also, many webshops only sell in one country or a few, not worldwide. There are issues like foreign VAT rates, customs declarations and higher shipping costs. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Platekompaniet". platekompaniet.no.

May 14

Reasons on the shift to physical media to streaming services

At the DVD section, there is a news that DVD sales dropped 86% with respect to the peak of DVD sales around 2005, while streaming services boosted in terms of finance. Although there are still movies that are new, released on DVDs, it had been less in 2020s. Unfortunately, DVD sales had faced in loss, since Best Buy and Target stopped selling DVDs and with the closure of Redbox. Can you please tell me and explain on why did DVDs declined so much, while the streaming services, like Netflix, continued to outnumber the growth? What is up with the shift in physical media to streaming services as of 2020s, that started in 2010s, despite the luxurious look and the collective nature of souvenirs? 205.155.225.249 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either as souvenirs or as wanting to watch it more than once? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both, the collection, and as wanting to watch it more than once. 205.155.225.249 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there aren't all that many people nowadays who want to own a physical copy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience: I purchased DVDs for my children. But, DVDs scratch. They stop working. For a good three years, I was buying at least one DVD per week. Then, Redbox started. I could rent a DVD instead of purcahse it. I wouldn't end up with a pile of scratched DVDs that don't work. Then, Netflix started. I didn't have to drive back and forth to Redbox. I could just have DVDs show up in the mail. Then, Netflix streaming started. I didn't have to do anything. Just select a show for the kids to watch. Then, ultraviolet started. I could purchase a movie, have it on a streaming service, and watch it whenever I like (even if no other other streaming service is carrying it) and I don't have to worry about the stupid disk getting scratched. That bridged the gap. You can buy a disk to have something to put on a shelf. You use the code in the box to register the ultraviolet movie that you can stream without physical media. But, it doesn't look like it ever became popular. Right now, I still find old scratched up DVDs hidden here and there and I have a large library of children's shows on Fandango streaming service. 68.187.174.155 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming services offer their own movies and series and third party productions they have a contract with. Such contracts can be exclusive, so that a movie can only be streamed through one particular streaming service. If you want to watch ten particular movies or series, you may need a subscription at five different streaming services, which is more expensive than just buying ten dvds. Ergo, switching to streaming allows the industry to make more money, which is why they encourage it; a switch enabled by the high availability of broad-band (fibre-optic) data connections. In addition, streaming tells the industry exactly which movies you watch and when, allowing more targeted marketing. The watch-all-you-can model also encourages people to watch more than in dvd days (instead of, say, read a book), which raises the impression that it's cheaper (it's cheaper per movie, but more expensive overall). PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mistake in your logic: you assume "the industry" to be a single and homogeneous entity, as if when you pay five times X money for 5 stream subscriptions, all that money eventually get into a single pocket. No. Each stream service is its own thing. Nobody gets all the 5X you paid: Netflix gets one X, Disney+ gets one X, Paramount+ gets one X, and so on. If several studios get their properties back from Netflix and start their own streams, it was not because of a nefarious plan to get several subscriptions instead of one, it was just to get their single subscription from you instead of Netflix's royalties. The "industry" as a whole gets damaged by the fragmentation, each one does for their own small but specific gain.

On a smaller scale, there was a case similar to the scenario you thought that is happening. Disney+, Star+ and Hulu, all properties of Disney. Three subscriptions that fall into a single pocket. But it didn't work as expected, it was ruining their global incomes, so they merged everything into Disney+. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing missing from earlier respondents is the relatively recent change in the nature of streaming services. For years, Netflix was really it, the only game in town. Because of that, they had pretty well everything; nobody else was really considering it, so they let the streaming rights go for next to nothing. Netflix profited hugely from this: they could offer a massive library of media for a very modest monthly fee. Over the last ten years, that's changed drastically: fragmentation across several platforms and increased costs are all way up. Every service now has exclusive content.

So there was an extended period where "moving to streaming" really meant "moving to Netflix" and it was really a no-brainer for consumers: a huge catalogue available at a nominal fee. Why pay $$$ for physical media?

But that's no longer the case. People who stream average four services, quadrupling their costs. The math is not so clear cut now, especially if you're not planning on watching hundreds of hours of media per month. Combine that with frustration over services not always offering their full library, censorship of older media, lack of bonus features, commentaries, etc. and you get the current push which is again leaning towards physical media 1, 2, 3. Matt Deres (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the audience side, there are several reasons people prefer streaming.

Buying physical stuff (be it DVD, CD-ROM, VHS, or whatever) means storing all of them, and taking care they don't get damaged. Not everyone has a house big enough to store too much useless stuff around.
Rewatch potential is limited. Some films are spectacles that you can see several times (the Lord of the Rings, Avengers: Endgame, Star Wars), but most others are a story that, good or bad, watching just once is quite enough. And even those spectacles, you can only watch them so many times before you know every little detail and it loses the initial fun.
Collecting stuff from a film you liked is a nice motivation, yes... but there's better stuff than DVDs to collect. If I want a visual reminder that Lord of the Rings is not for me just another film but the GOAT, then I would buy wallpapers (actual wallpapers, that you can hang on the wall), T-Shirts, action figures, stickers, etc.
You can only watch a DVD at home. You can watch streaming anywhere, as long as you have a portable device capable to open it (such as a cell phone or a tablet), an internet connection and enough time. And if you download the film or episode beforehand, you can even stream without internet.
The films being scattered across several platforms is only a recent thing. Initially, it was all at Netflix, so yes, a subscription was indeed cheaper. That state of things shaped the public taste for streaming, and it stayed even if the current fragmentation undermines it (in any case, the market can not stand such fragmentation, soon several providers will close or merge and we'll have a more manageable number again, in fact some already did).

In fact, it can be said that people was waiting for streaming to be a thing. Before the internet, many preferred the Video rental shop rather than buying physical copies of the films. Cambalachero (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero You have good points, its best if you prefer books over DVDs and other physical media. Books have more values than DVDs and physical media. Books offer imagination that DVDs do not have. Additionally, books assist anyone on learning something new and acquire skills and knowledge, while DVDs and other physical media only offer entertainment and laughter's, which may not last long. And finally, DVDs often have limited quantity and library available compared to books and other print media. This is one of the reason on why physical media is dying with Redbox closing and other supermarkets getting rid of CDs and DVDs. 2600:1700:78EA:450:75E5:23D1:5B65:DBB4 (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An irony: Guillermo del Toro recommends film fans purchase physical media, but his Pinocchio is only available on the hugely expensive Criterion Collection label. Doug butler (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That goes into the realm of personal opinions, we can't discuss that kind of things. The shift from physical to stream is a phenomenon that happened, and we can try to figure out the causes, but without falling into that. Basically, we can discuss why it happened, but not if it should or shouldn't have. Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First men's FA Cup Final before League was over

It used to be a tradition that the FA Cup was played after the league was completed. In more recent seasons however sometimes the FA Cup final is played before the league is complete. Was the 2011 final where Manchester City beat Stoke City the first time that this happened? (80.233.75.87 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

This had happened in several years in the 1920s and 1930s. But as far as I know, FA Cup final has never been played more than one week before top-level league finish. --40bus (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. IP changed. (80.233.71.115 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

FIFA

Why was England or any other British association founding member of FIFA? Why didn't England participate in any of the pre-world War II World Cups (1930, 1934, 1938)? Why they as founders of football did such thing? --40bus (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking why Britain was not a founding member? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --40bus (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See England national football team#Early years and its associated reference [1]. "The British refused to embrace the new era and split from Fifa over the issue of payment to amateurs." --Viennese Waltz 07:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

[1] "Platekompaniet". platekompaniet.no.

[1]