Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#why did mike myers and Robin Ruzan divorce.3F

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)

: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)

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

:::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)

::::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)

: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)

::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)

: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 [https://research.mountain.com/trends/the-average-ctv-household-actively-uses-around-4-streaming-apps/ 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 [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-physical-media-collectors-1.7454268 1], [https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/electronics/why-you-should-still-buy-physical-media 2], [https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2024/01/30/my-ongoing-reasons-for-owning-physical-media/ 3]. Matt Deres (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

:@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)

::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)

::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)

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))

: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)

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

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)

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

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

:See England national football team#Early years and its associated reference [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/team_pages/england/newsid_1739000/1739245.stm]. "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)

:For more on what seems to be {{u|40bus}}'s query, see History of FIFA. Long story short: before FIFA's creation in 1904, the President of England's Football Association, followed by those of Ireland, Scotland and Wales (together the leading football playing nations of the time), had rejected the idea of a global governing body, so initially declined the opportunity of joining it. Without them, FIFA's initial attempt to organise an international tournament failed, but the English FA was persuaded to relent by the Belgian FA's chairman and joined in 1905, and an English FA administrator was elected as FIFA's President in 1906, so while not a founding member, the English FA was an early member. The other three 'Home Nations' FAs may not have joined until 1910, but verifiable dates seems elusive (G00gle initially gave me nonsensical answers). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.170.37 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 19 =

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)

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)

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)

: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)

::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)

= 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)

= May 25 =