Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#The Simpsons Adult Genre

A measure of 10/16 means that it can be filled with 2 groups of 5 sixteenth notes. We can easily use eighth notes and dotted eighth notes to represent longer notes that don't cross the middle of the measure. If we wanted 2 equal notes in a 10/16 measure, each one would be a dotted eighth note tied to an eighth note. But what if we wanted to fill in a measure of 10/16 with a single note?? What note would we use?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Using the (IMO somewhat illogical) notation for tuplets, in which {{serif|⌜3:2⌝}} over a group of three quavers means that the three notes together have the same duration as two quavers, placing {{serif|⌜1:10⌝}} over a singleton group of one semiquaver should mean, "play this note with the duration of ten semiquavers. (Placing instead {{serif|⌜107px⌝}} over a whole or half note, while not a proper generalization of more conventional tuplet indications, may actually be clearer.) Performing artists may initially be puzzled, but if your note fills a bar, I expect they'll figure it out.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::What's illogical about the tuplet notation?? What would be more logical?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::What is illogical is that the indication usually only identifies the number of notes, as seen in

::::120px.

:::This is redundant information. I can count and see there are five notes for myself. What is missing from this notation is the most crucial bit of information: it fails to indicate the time in which this group has to be played. When we encounter this, it will usually be four eights, the time of a half note, but it could occasionally, say in a piece in {{music|time|6|8}}, also be three or six eights. We have to infer this from the context.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I remember noticing this strange redundancy the first time I ever encountered such notation, over 60 years ago. My teacher didn't seem to think it was anything noteworthy but just the way things are done, so I just absorbed it. I think this is the first time since then that I've ever seen anyone else mentioning it. (If only we had AI creating music notation for us, we could be rid of the almost unbearable weight of these nonsensical conventions.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::As an aside, this sort of tuplet notation is not something that is used in real life, outside of perhaps the most avant-garde of modern classical music; "⌜1:10⌝" is not an indication that would be commonly understood by performers. (I'm refraining from stating that this sort of notation doesn't exist, as I'm sure you have experience with it somewhere, but in my years of performing just about every sort of notated Western music there is I've never encountered it before, save perhaps in a Finale tuplet entry dialogue. :) ) I do agree with your assessment of the more common tuplet notation, though — reading through your comment I found myself rejecting the idea that a tuplet of five quavers could fill the space of three regular quavers in 6/8 time (this would be represented rather with semiquavers), but I couldn't come up with a music-theoretical reason why – it just "feels wrong". Q.E.D. (fugues) (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:10/16 is a complex meter, so the notationally "correct" answer depends on the grouping employed by the composer. (Again, as a complex meter, there is no "default" grouping for 10/16 that can be established in isolation. It cannot simply be divided into "two groups of five," as you say, because 5/16 is itself complex — beat groupings always consist of either two or three beats.) The most common groupings for 10-beat meters are 2+2+3+3 and 3+3+2+2; in the former case, the "correct" way to group a note spanning the entire bar would be a quarter note tied to a dotted quarter note, or perhaps two eighth notes tied with two dotted eighth notes in more conservative engraving styles. (2+3+2+3 and its inverse are rarely seen, as in such groupings two bars of 5 would generally be preferred.) (fugues) (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

And then while you're mopping it up can anyone tell me if the Larry E. Williams who wrote Let Your Love Flow is the Larry Williams who wrote Dizzy Miss Lizzie? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:The article about that song indicates that its writer Williams was a roadie for Neil Diamond. How likely is the Dizzy Miss Lizzie writer to have been a roadie for Diamond? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Interestingly, they were both named Lawrence Eugene Williams, according to Discogs. The writer of "Let Your Love Flow" used his middle initial in credits in order to distinguish himself from his more famous namesake. Xuxl (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 23 =

Hi, I’m a new editor who’s only made about 12 edits total. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_(Swedish_band)&oldid=1291624091 Recent edits] were made by myself in reference to the most recent line-up changes (as of May 2025) which was reverted very shortly after. Due to the nature of the band, it is hard to find sources relating to the status of the musicians, which makes edits like the one I made appear not credible even though we can physically see the change in line-up. A lot of the ‘evidence’ for changes in members are either observation and consensus, or sometimes social media posts from insiders (e.g. Vanessa Warwick’s confirmation that Jutty Taylor had “left the tour for personal reasons” via a comment on her own Instagram), or even less commonly the members themselves which may require interpretation (e.g. Mad Gallica announcing via social media that she will focus on her solo career, and then being evidently replaced in the most recent tour). Essentially I ask, if there is information known to be true regarding updates in the 2025 lineup (i.e. Cumulus departed from the band after the 2023 Re-Imperatour, Aurora was moved to Cumulus’ place on keys, Gabriela Gunčíková is the new backing vocalist — which we know from literally just seeing her face, and one social media post from a friend of hers —, Jutty Taylor departed from tour 9 days in) but only sources such as the aforementioned are available, how am I able to provide updated information with a lack of sources? Is it possible, should I not bother, is outdated info not misinformation? Other editors are likely going to (and already have) disregarded and revert edits that cite things like Warwick’s social media or nothing at all, so I don’t know what to do! :( Is.not.here (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome to Wikipedia, sorry about the way that reliable sources lag behind observable reality. Your edit to Gabriela Gunčíková regarding the Satanized video still stands, I see. It's possible that a similar modest edit to the Ghost article, at the point where this video is mentioned, to say that she is in it, would survive. Generally, one small edit at a time will increase the survival rate. One way around poor quality sources is to write person said that x is true, avoiding the stronger assertion of x is true (reference: person). This approach of attribution is mentioned at WP:RSOPINION, which also links to WP:ABOUTSELF, the rule that social media posts may be used as sources for facts about the person who posted. So Mad Gallica's remarks about focusing on her solo career could be included, without interpretation. It is probably too soon, and too provocative, to edit those boxes displaying the lineup.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you so so much! This is super helpful and I’ll definitely try out your advice, I hope you don’t mind if I come back to ask related questions if they come up. I appreciate the help! Is.not.here (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Of course, you're welcome.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, reference desk regulars, I was looking through the reference desk archives for some of the longest, most intense, or otherwise interesting discussions. I realized that I could probably... ask the reference desk itself. So, any memorable threads you recommend? Any particularly intense efforts to track down a dubious factoid or elusive source? Any recurring disagreements? Serious examinations of silly topics, like this investigation into whether a Roman emperor invented the Whoopee Cushion, are also welcome. Thanks for all you do here. I don't visit the reference desk nearly as often as I should! Annierau (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you're looking for the dumbest, most pointless, discussions, try going through the talk page archive. God, what a mess; we're a lot better now. It's not RD-related, but have you seen Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Matt Deres (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReference+desk%2FArchives&profile=default&search=%22Please+suitly+emphazi%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&searchToken=3m7qsyyo3skuer8vn4zbtufb6 Please suitly emphazi.]  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I remember all the Tim Cahill questions, the brilliant responses of the much missed User:Clio the Muse, the trolls, the constant 'What type of fallacy is this' weirdness, the injokes, the spats between X and Y and X and Z.

:There have been many epic threads but they're hard to dig out - there used to be an offwiki website with some Best Ofs but it's long been deleted.

:Now - if your question was 'which responses are you most proud of?' or 'which ones do you remember and chuckle' then I've got some I recall fondly. YMMV. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Nanonic (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Let us not forget the Russian(?) with the impenetrable physics questions, who regularly followed up their questions with a cascade of unclarifying comments. —Tamfang (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:This one made me laugh at the time. A real "old man yells at cloud" situation. Matt Deres (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Clio the Muse was a fake, and a rather unpleasant one at that. This thread belongs on the RD talk page, but I guess it's too late for that now. --Viennese Waltz 18:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|Viennese Waltz}} I often wondered about her. There were a couple of things she said that were off, as I recall. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For my part, I rather liked Clio, and I too miss her. Deor (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::A fake what? Matt Deres (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clio_the_Muse&oldid=687900338#Authentic_voice_of_Clio?] and [https://anatheimp1.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/ana-the-imp-exposed/]. --Viennese Waltz 15:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::She seemed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clio_the_Muse&diff=prev&oldid=356713916 confused about when she was born] as well, as I recall. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::She changed her age more than once (She was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clio_the_Muse&diff=prev&oldid=151307405 24 in August 2007], having been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clio_the_Muse&diff=prev&oldid=109997594 26 in February]. She went from being a doctor, to having completed work on her PhD, to working on a PhD (in that order). You can look through here userpage history yourself if you've the stomach for it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: I was really annoyed, not at Cleo per se, but at the way many editors were so starstruck by her that they said they would cut and paste her Ref Desk answers verbatim into articles. If anyone had ever queried the source of these additions, they would have had to be content with "Clio the Muse said so". So much for our rigorous sourcing protocols. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah, fair enough. I just assume everyone on Wikipedia is a dog. Matt Deres (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just three years ago, there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2022_May_7#Hers_is_severely_underutilized this Indonesian person who was annoyed at the English language], becoming so annoyed as to declare "I am really annoying now".  Card Zero  (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The choice of word may have reflected an unconscious grasp of English semantics.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I do miss the British chap who lived in Texas with a Mini and a MINI and was very helpful on the Science desk. I'm terrible at names. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's Steve Baker, who wrote this classic introduction to 3D graphics, [https://www.sjbaker.org/steve/omniv/matrices_can_be_your_friends.html Matrices can be your friends]. Found a short [https://libregamewiki.org/Steve_Baker bio] here. Card Zero  (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 24 =

Is Sean Feucht's surname really pronounced /fʌkt/, or is this willful vandalism? 2601:644:4301:D1B0:B0C3:AE84:797B:C03 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:This was added on May 20 in a drive-by edit by an anonymous IP, the only edit made from the IP address. Even disregarding the semantics, this is an unlikely pronunciation of the name, so this is almost certainly vandalism. I have reverted it.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Good move. But truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. I know of a person whose name is "Cupid Fuck", pronounced exactly how you'd expect. He was from a non-English background, if that helps any. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I grew up in the 1050s an area of Australia with thousands of European immigrants. The lifeguard at the local pool was Otto Fuchs, from Germany. He officially changed his surname to Ford. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::One would expect a name change to Fox, which is a common name in English, sounds almost the same as German Fuchs (/fʊks/) and even means the same (it's a cognate). Feucht may also be from German, with German pronunciation /fɔɪ̯çt/. Most Americans will make a mess of that. It means "moist", not exactly a common name in English. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You missed the point on what it sounds like. To normal teenage boys, the regular clientele at the pool, they weren't likely to know or to research the correct translation of Fuchs. To their semi-developed and testosterone driven minds, it looked like fucks. So that's what they said. Otto went for something a bit further removed. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not necessarily "moist", as the towns of Feucht and Feuchtwangen both derive their name from Fichte, i.e. spruce tree. The same may be true for the surname. Doesn't affect the pronunciation, of course. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Does Feuchtwangen sound like "damp cheeks"?  Card Zero  (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::But better known since 2004 -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What a strange coincidence, I'm reading Going Postal at the moment - Lipwig comes from the equivalent of Bavaria, where I now learn the town of Feucht is located. 'Lip Wig' is slang for a 'moustache' a common addition to a disguise.[https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Moist_von_Lipwig] Damn, he was really good at multi-layered humour, cunning puns everywhere. MinorProphet (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 25 =

The article Comedian describes the origin of radio comedy in America, then jumps to Without a Hollywood supply of comedians to draw from, radio comedy did not begin in the United Kingdom until a generation later, i.e. the 1950s. This is opaque to me. Was there a steady stream of American acts on the BBC until 1930, then only talks and light music until the first Goon Show? Doug butler (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's not how I would parse it. In the US, Hollywood comedians often moved to radio. Not having such a source, radio comedies didn't start in the UK until somewhat later. There's no mention of an existence and then a gap and then a resurgence; just a later creation. Personally, that still sounds dubious to me. Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks {{ping|User:Matt Deres}}. You've given me the key to the OP's intention. Doug butler (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Our Lizzie (Helena Millais) broadcast "'comedy fragments from life" in 1922. That Child, a sitcom, was broadcast in 1926. Ronald Frankau "started broadcasting saucy jokes on the radio in an Etonian tone for the BBC" in 1925, Murgatroyd and Winterbottom were broadcast on the BBC from 1935, Band Waggon started in 1938, ITMA started in 1939. See {{cite book|last1=Foster|first1=Andy|last2=Furst|first2=Steve|title=Radio Comedy 1938-1968 A Guide to 30 Years of Wonderful Wireless|url=https://www.worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/Radio-Programming/Radio-Comedy-1938-1968-1996.pdf|year=1996|publisher=Virgin Publishing Ltd|location=London|isbn=0-86369-960-X|chapter=1: The Beginnings of Radio Comedy and the 1930s}} DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Britain had a rich tradition of Music hall, Variety show and Pantomime comedy to draw on. A comparative (to the US) scarcity of comedy on earlier British radio is more likely a reflection of the attitudes of those controlling early radio content wanting a more 'highbrow' tone.

:In the early 1920s the British Government via the General Post Office controlled licences to broadcast quite tightly, explicitly to avoid the potentially detrimental situation developing in the less-controlled US. They oversaw consolidation of the half-dozen significant commercial broadcasters into the BBC in 1922 and rendered this non-commercial in 1926. In a geographically smaller and more densely populated country, independent local radio broadcasting did not reappear until the 1960s.

:Any residual discouragement of comedy on the radio was discarded during the Second World War, when many comedians and comedy (or comedy-containing) shows, such as Danger – Men at Work!, The Happidrome, Hi Gang!, It's That Man Again aka ITMA, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, Stand Easy, and Variety Bandbox were broadcast to maintain national morale. Further radio comedy shows appeared between 1945 and 1950.

:The assertions in the (rather US PoV) articles Comedian (linked by the OP) and Radio Comedy that "Radio comedy did not begin in the United Kingdom until a generation later, with such popular 1950s shows as . . ." are simply inaccurate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's really useful, thank you. Doug butler (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask are both part 1 and 2 from The Trials of Oscar Wilde from 1996 from the BBC radio series Saturday Playhouse read by Simon Russell Beale included on the audio CD The Oscar Wilde BBC Radio Drama Collection. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Matthew John Drummond}} By the looks of [https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/439613/the-oscar-wilde-bbc-radio-drama-collection-by-oscar-wilde/9781787534698 this page] no, The Trials of Oscar Wilde is not included. I haven't been able to find a release of the Saturday Playhouse production, which was written by Christopher Fits-Simon. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::The page says Simon Russell Beale (Read by) on the website and The Trials of Oscar Wilde the BBC radio series Saturday Playhouse is the only radio adaptation that Simon Russell Beale has been in. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It says "Moving examples of his correspondence are revealed in The Letters of Oscar Wilde and De Profundis, read by Simon Callow and Simon Russell Beale respectively".

= May 29 =