Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2017 June 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 23

Title of horror movie about a door swallowing people when a guy plays his guitar

At some point I watched a horror movie (probably a B-movie, a bad movie) that was more or less like this:

Inside the basement of a house, a guy finds a door that is closed shut. He discovers that when he plays his guitar, the door opens and pulls/swallows whatever is close to it like a black hole. He uses the door to kill people, by making them stand close to it and then playing his guitar.

I probably watched it in the 1990s, but it could have been 2005 at most. Any idea what movie is this? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds related to the episode "The Tale of the Dark Music" (1992) from the Are You Afraid of the Dark? series, though the music activating the creature behind the door comes from a radio, not a guitar. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s

Hi, on List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s, the last images at the side (which go down too far as well) don't mention Drake and Ed Sheeran's other number ones that decade or the year which they became number one, does anyone know what can be done to make this article better?--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You are free to edit the article. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is editable by anyone.211.23.25.64 (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonder Woman film claim

The entry on the new Wonder Woman movie claims that 85 percent of World War I casualties were caused by chemical weapons. The Wikipedia entry on chemical weapons, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I indicates only 90 deaths among 1.2 million casualties. 192.104.220.1 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read the first two paragraphs of Casualty (person). The term is not limited to those who die. MarnetteD|Talk 00:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

For those who are going to investigate the details about this the IP is talking about the statement in the last paragraph in this section Wonder Woman (2017 film)#Critical response. I thought this would save others from having to search through the whole article. MarnetteD|Talk 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There are several things to say here:

• First, what Marnette said about "casualties".
• Second, what Chemical weapons in World War I actually indicates is "90 thousand" deaths, not 90. Or it did; I've just changed the wording to the more common style "ninety thousand".
• Third, what Wonder Woman (2017 film) actually says is that writer David Hambling claimed that 85% of casualties had that cause, not that it's correct.
• Still, the article also doesn't say that it's wrong, and this claim is in serious conflict what casualty numbers given in Chemical weapons in World War I and the total casualties given in World War I and World War I casualties show. Maybe Hambling was not intending to refer to the entire war; maybe he was just wrong; maybe Wikipedia is wrong. I don't know.

--76.71.5.114 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The quote in the Wonder Woman article is incorrect, conflating two different sentences from the David Hambling article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a26769/world-war-i-poison-gas-wonder-woman/). He does indeed say "Gas was intended to win the war. On that much Wonder Woman is absolutely right." At that point, the original article does not mention 85%. Later in the article he notes that 85% of gas warfare casualties were caused by phosgene gas. Nowhere does he say that 85% of all casualties were caused by gas. Wymspen (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the bottom of things Wymspen. IMO you should could update the article to reflect what your research has found. Just my suggestion and you should feel free to ignore it if you wish. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A false quote in quotation marks with a named living source is a WP:BLP issue regardless of the place and should immediately be fixed. I have done that.[1] It was added in [2] by Omanyd. archive.org has snapshots both before and after with no sign of the false quote. I'm assuming good faith but do not make up alleged quotes in quotation marks by writing your own interpretation of a source, even if the interpretation had been right. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)