Jump to content

Talk:Carol (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Plot edits

Pyxis Solitary's recent edit summary to this article suggests s/he wasn't too happy with my rewriting the plot section ("slash-and-burn through articles that other editors found acceptable" ... "rip apart").

The previous version was at the maximum wordcount for plot summaries, which almost always points to unnecessarily wordy and descriptive writing. (I've written many, many plot summaries for Wikipedia, and have yet to find a plot that really does need to hit the 700-word mark.) I believe my edit streamlines the summary without removing essential detail. Here are some examples of how:

  • "During the Christmas season of 1952, Therese Belivet, a temporary shopgirl and aspiring photographer, is working in Frankenberg's department store in Manhattan." - We don't need to say she is a shopgirl and that she's working in a shop. This is tautological. The fact that she is only working there temporarily isn't important to the story.
  • "Therese visits Dannie and he seizes the opportunity to kiss her." This can simply become "Therese visits Dannie and he kisses her." The "seizes the opportunity" is poetic and adds no information.
  • "Therese takes the gloves home and, using Frankenberg's sales slip with Carol's name and address, mails them to her." - We don't need to say Therese takes the gloves; by mailing them, we know she took them.
  • "Carol takes Therese to the train station and Therese returns home." It's not important to say that Therese returns home; this is implied by her going to the train station.
  • "Carol kisses Therese for the first time." As we presume they haven't kissed before, "for the first time" is unnecessary.
  • "The two finally acknowledge their strong feelings for each other and make love." We can delete "finally acknowledge their strong feelings for reach other", as "the two kiss and make love" rather serves that purpose, wouldn't you say?
  • "She says the apartment is big enough for two and hopes Therese might like to live with her. Therese declines" can simply become "Therese declines her invitation to live with her." By saying that Therese declines an invitation, we understand an invitation was made. It's not important to mention that the apartment is big enough for two, as her inviting her to live in it suggests that.

I hope this has helped explain why I felt my edits were improvements. There was no intention to "slash and burn" or "rip apart" anything. Remember the words of Jefferson: "The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do." I also recommend this user essay on plot summaries. Happy holidays! Popcornduff (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on WP:PLOTSUM and WP:FILMPLOT: there was no justifiable, Wikipedia-supported reason to undo edit of "10:25, January 2, 2017". This undoing of another editor's good faith contribution, coupled by User:Popcornduff's logic for making such edit reversal, requires the attention of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted you once - that's not an edit war. (I might point out that you've now reverted the edit, which is a bit of a pot-kettle situation, isn't it?) And I think I've pretty extensively explained the rationale behind my changes, whereas you haven't. Feel free to bring it up at the edit warring noticeboard, though...? Popcornduff (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"I've pretty extensively explained the rationale behind my changes, whereas you haven't." The summaries provided for "10:25, January 2, 2017" and "21:12, 2 January 2017" edits are sufficient. Your reason for undoing another editor's contribution is a personal point of view -- but not WP policy. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I could just as easily argue that your own edits are your opinion too. My goal is to produce prose that is as concise and readable as possible, and that means cutting superfluous detail. I've given examples of where I did this, and why. You should be arguing why your prose is better - which you haven't, yet. Popcornduff (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff asked me to comment. I was the one who wrote the essay about streamlining plot summaries, so I guess you can take my comments with a grain of salt – I'm admittedly going to be a little biased toward minimalism. But here's what I think about the above changes:

  • I agree it's redundant to say that someone is a shopgirl who works in a shop. Isn't there a better way to word this? It's not a critical issue, but it seems like the article has been nominated for GA. In that case, something like this could hold it up. If I were performing the review right now, this is something that I would tag as needing improvement.
  • I agree with removing "seizes the opportunity", but it's not egregious. If you guys can't come to an agreement on this, I'd probably just leave it in.
  • I don't really have an opinion on taking the gloves. In a longer plot summary, I would simplify the sentence, but letting through a few extraneous details in a guideline-compliant plot summary doesn't bother me.
  • I'm not sure I agree with Popcornduff about the train station. Speaking as someone who knows nothing about the plot, it doesn't seem obvious to me.
  • Kissing "for the first time" might be a detail worth mentioning.
  • "make love" is a euphemism for "have sex". I would ask that to be changed in a GA review; it fails WP:WTW, which is a part of the GA criteria. Beyond that, I can't say that I have a strong opinion. Couldn't you just say, "Acknowledging their mutual attraction, they have sex." But, hey, if you prefer the verbose version, I'm not going to complain.
  • I much prefer Porncornduff's version of the declined invitation. Outside of a GA review, I wouldn't care too much, but in a GA review, I'd probably make the exact same suggestion Popcornduff did.

The most important changes seem to be the obvious euphemism and redundant shopgirl sentence. Unless you got a hardliner for the review, it's likely the rest of the stuff wouldn't matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • "I was the one who wrote the essay about streamlining plot summaries". I glanced at it and as you say, it's an essay. Your personal essay. You're entitled to your viewpoint and make suggestions about how to write a plot summary, but an editor's essay (as well intended as it may be) is not WP policy nor WP approved guidelines.
  • "it's redundant to say that someone is a shopgirl who works in a shop". No, it doesn't say she works in a "shop" -- it says she works in a department store and the word "shopgirl" means female salesclerk. It's a word appropriate to the era the plot is set in. (Carol is adapted from the autobiographical novel "The Price of Salt" by Patricia Highsmith. Just as Therese is a shopgirl at Frankenberg's when the story begins, Highsmith was a temporary shopgirl in Bloomingdale's toy department when she encountered her real-life "Carol".)
  • "seizes the opportunity" was deleted and no one restored it to the plot.
  • "I don't really have an opinion on taking the gloves." If you saw the film then you'd know why it's important to emphasize this detail.
  • "I'm not sure I agree with Popcornduff about the train station." Ditto the same about the gloves. You have to see the scene to know why it's an important detail. Therese's visit was not supposed to end that way. She was not supposed to return home that night.
  • "Kissing "for the first time" might be a detail worth mentioning." Yes. Because the two women do not jump each other's bones asap. The path to that moment is a slow burn. And when it happens ... well, you have to see the film to understand.
  • ""make love" is a euphemism for "have sex"." Yes, it's a euphemism, but the scene is more than just sex. They are amorous. They stop. They gaze at each other. Carol whispers a sentiment that has become synonymous with the novel the film is adapted from. They make love.
  • "I much prefer Porncornduff's version of the declined invitation." And you're entitled to your opinion, yes. But if you have not seen the film and have not seen the scene and are not familiar with the dialog that takes place in it ... then you cannot appreciate this powerful moment between the two characters.
"it seems like the article has been nominated for GA." Just so you know: administrators became involved in this article months ago. They kept an eye on it. They knew about the plot summary being long. They suggested it be edited down from what it originally was. After several edits brought it down to as close to 700 words as possible, they didn't disapprove of the final outcome. In a nutshell ... the plot summary at 677 words complies with WP:FILMPLOT. Wikipedia as a whole is a work in progress, but some overzealous editors whittle a plot summary to the point that it loses its "flavor". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This final point is a line of thinking that comes up a lot on Wikipedia, and is, I think, misguided. It goes like this: "I don't have a problem with X. Other editors don't have a problem with X either. Additionally, X is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines. In fact, X has achieved GA/FA/whatever status, and the Queen of England called me to say how great she thought X was. So if you want to change X, you must be mistaken." It presumes that X cannot be improved. It's a foregone conclusion, and it distresses me.
You want to preserve "flavor" in Wikipedia articles, and make them less "mundane" (your words). You talk about stuff like "powerful moments between the two characters". I understand where you're coming from, but these words are red flags to me; it sounds like your goal is recreate the passion and romance of this story, the "slow burn", when we should rather aim to concisely summarise its plot - and that's it. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia.
Take the "Carol and Therese kiss for the first time" line again, as it exemplifies what I'm talking about. There is is nothing in the plot summary that would otherwise lead the reader to think that the "women jump each other's bones asap". No one, coming to the line "Carol and Therese kiss", would wonder if they had kissed before. It simply doesn't add information, unless you want to indicate that they kissed again at some point, but that doesn't seem important and hasn't been your argument thus far. Popcornduff (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"it distresses me". It distresses you. But you are not the only editor with experience editing WP and it has not distressed others.
"these words are red flags to me". How other people express themselves is their prerogative. You shouldn't read imaginary tea leaves or take it personally. It's not about you.
"this is an encyclopedia". This is a user-generated encyclopedia. It is not the "Encyclopedia Britannica".
Because something may not jive with you does not mean it doesn't jive with others -- readers and editors alike. WP:PLOTSUM states: "The point of a summary is...to explain the story." "Necessary detail must be maintained." "There is no universal set length for a plot summary....The Film style guideline suggests...." (the operative word being suggests). WP:FILMPLOT states: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events...." --> Being a shopgirl at Frankenberg's, the gloves being left at the counter and Therese taking them home with her, Therese returning home on a train, Carol and Therese finally kissing and making love, Carol making herself vulnerable by inviting Therese to live with her, Therese saying "no" to Carol ... these are all main events in the film's story. This also includes the final shot in the ending scene where Carol is looking directly at Therese (the camera) as she walks towards Carol. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be spending a lot of time telling me that my opinion is my opinion - I know that. Instead, you should be showing me where my arguments fail.
Case in point: "You are not the only editor with experience editing WP and it has not distressed others." This is exactly the fallacy I explained above. You're just saying "other people disagree". I know this. It's not an argument.
"Necessary detail must be maintained."' - this is the bit that matters. Why are the things you want to include necessary? The arguments you have made so far, in response to NinjaRobotPirate, are thin. To state that Therese is a shopgirl when we mention in the same sentence that she works in a department store is obviously redundant and I'm not sure how else to explain it. Your other points to NinjaRobotPirate are variations on "you haven't seen the movie so you can't know why this is important", which is fair enough I suppose, but at the same time I'm still in the dark about why my version is worse. Your list of events after that is simply a list, with no arguments. Popcornduff (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
"Why are the things you want to include necessary?" Why are the things you want to exclude not necessary? Where do you get your idea that your version of what should be done is more valid than mine or another editor's? Your aim here has been to undo the work of other editors and justify it with personal opinions about how Wikipedia articles should be edited. This article was nominated for GA because of how good it is -- including the Plot summary that existed before you decided you knew better than anyone else about what it should contain. Having it cut down to 700 or less words is not a problem. The problem is your wanting to force into it your idea of what the main events are and what the important details should be. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the next step be a neutral request for input at WT:FILM or an attempt at dispute resolution via WP:DRN. I don't think you two are going to agree on how to write this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a neutral request for input would the best, next step. I also think a knowledge of the story and film scenes would be helpful. For those who have not seen the film, these brief "cliff notes" about it may be useful in understanding the Plot summary for this film. Spoiler Alert:
Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I've given extensive accounts of why I think my edits are an improvement. Can you do the same for yours? Popcornduff (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who you think you are, but I don't owe you any explanation regarding my edits. Anyone who wants to know what existed before I edited content can see the 'before and after' for themselves in the History of the edits. Any neutral party who reviews the edits can judge them on their own merits. [But for them, I'll provide this example: If you had seen the film you would know that Carol did not know who returned the gloves to her. All she knew when she called Frankenberg's was that "employee 645-A" had done it. However, what you did to this important detail ("Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank Therese and invites her to lunch.") is misleading because it suggests that Carol knew it was Therese who had returned them.] Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a talk page. You can't anyone to take your position seriously if you refuse to explain your arguments. You're just reverting me without explaining why. That's bizarre. I take your point about the gloves, though! Popcornduff (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

imo, the reverting was understandable & plot is a better read. Minimalism is not the end-all and can result in a disservice to the article.2602:306:CE14:B210:C62C:3FF:FE06:E12A (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of top-10 lists

This follows WP:FILMMOS for the "Accolades" section. For anyone interested in the debate about this particular article and its Accolades spinoff, please see Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film)#Gushy tone and other vios. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate that active discussion on top-10 lists is going on at the above talk page, and it is inappropriate to include top-10 lists in this article while such discussion is ongoing (to say nothing of WP:FILMMOS prohibiting it). --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Top Ten lists discussion

Regarding the deletion from the *Critical reception* section of summary prose and reliable sources about Carol's inclusion in 'best of' or 'top' year-end lists:

A request for comment regarding what is or is not a top ten "list" has been submitted in WikiProject Film: RfC re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film).

(Update: I erroneously referred to it as an RfC. My apologies for this confusion.)

Interested editors: please also visit the accolades article Talk page. Your input in topics Accolades on this page and Gushy tone and other vios would be beneficial to both the article and its talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to Pyxis Solitary, what you posted at that WikiProject talkpage is not an WP:RFC, so I have changed the wording of this thread title. If you want to know how to create and file an RfC, see WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

♦ Update: ♦

The discussion re guidelines for the critical response section has shifted to: "Lists" vs. prose about lists @ MOS:FILM Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor's inappropriate edit-summary

An editor inappropriately wrote: "Re 'updating # of critics' by User:Tenebrae. The # was updated from 247 to 250. User:Tenebrae reduced it to 247 then re-edited to change back to 250. Editor behavior is disruptive and harmful to article."

I find this remarkable. The editor is complaining that another editor immediately went back and corrected a number he had inadvertently changed a moment earlier. Just ... wow. That kind on inappropriate comment is what's disruptive. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, this outrage comes from a holier-than-thou hypocrite. Read your own choice of words about another editor in your summary of: Revision as of 16:46, 9 January 2017. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh* One cannot go against consensus and make disallowed edits. I'm not sure it's realistic to think that one can continue doing so and not expect others to make strong note of it.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I must confess I've found a lot of Pyxis Solitary's discourse on this article pretty hostile (see plot discussion above). Popcornduff (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Pyxis made a trivial change to the article (removing a period) simply to use the edit summary to criticise another editor, then immediately restored the period in the next edit. ie he/she used a dummy edit to complain about another editor. Do I have that right? That's very odd, and can only lead to bad vibes, since seemingly Tenebrae was correcting his/her own mistake. (Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood what's happened here.) Popcornduff (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You two can have tea together, if you want. But the fact is that User:Tenebrae has been deleting and restoring content recklessly. In the List of accolades received by Carol (film) he deleted legitimate content .. then restored it (Revision as of 19:38, 9 January 2017). -- just as he did in the above-referenced edit. His editing has become disruptive. He is misguided and careless. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, enough, please. You cannot keep insulting other editors and you cannot keep making false claims. I am asking you politely to speak more civilly, as WP:CIVIL guidelines indicate. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Popcornduff plot edits

User:Popcornduff's summary for his latest alteration of the Plot states: "hoping for a compromise". But User:Popcornduff is not seeking compromise. This is the second time he has altered the same descriptive prose. If this editor really believed in "compromise" he would accept that his ideas about composition are not shared by every editor. To continue to alter the plot indicates that he is determined to control the plot.

Additionally, dismissing a terminology as "personal interpretation" indicates that he is unfamiliar with the terminology he deleted. In the English language, a "knowing smile" is a description for someone knowing a secret:

  • A knowing smile conveys a lot of information — it implies that you know a secret or are in on some background information. Picture Mona Lisa....A knowing glance tells its recipient that you've got them figured out or that you're aware of something they haven't shared with many people…The noun version of knowing is also simple, meaning "the state of having knowledge or being aware." (source: Vocabulary.com)

This definition is precisely what is conveyed with Carol's facial expression in the two-minutes long final scene.

Obsessive-compulsive editing does not benefit any Wikipedia article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the plot since I've enough agita with this editor, but "knowing" is clearly interpretive and POV; all the screen physically shows is a smile, and anything beyond that is personal interpretation that goes against guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
"all the screen physically shows is a smile". No. Watch it again. What you see in that 2-minute final scene is a smile that grows slowly as Carol's gaze is fixed on Therese (we, the audience, become Therese and see it through Therese's "eyes"). The creation of a narrative includes creativity with use of language. Until User:Popcornduff deemed the description of the final scene as, shall we say, "popcornerous", other Wikipedia editors (by virtue of not altering it) accepted how the final scene was described. Consensus is not strictly reached by a few editors pronouncing their agreement about a subject in a talk page. Consensus also exists when the numerous editors who have edited this article have found content satisfactory by not reworking it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
What you're indicating is your misunderstanding of WP:FILM guidelines for plot synopses, as well as, more crucially, WP:NPOV. "Knowing" is your personal interpretation. All we manifestly see on the screen is a smile. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This article and its plot were created by numerous Wikipedia editors. Their opinion regarding the plot matters as much as yours and User:Popcornduff's. And if you didn't notice, another editor did provide an opinion in Plot edits. Don't even try to belittle and dismiss it because it's an IP editor. Being an IP editor is accepted by Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It was an attempt at a compromise in that it preserved some stuff I don't see as good or necessary - stuff we disagree on - but re-inserted stuff some other stuff I'm still fighting for. It would be great if you could avoid suggesting I have psychological issues (??), thank you. Popcornduff (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
"some stuff I don't see as good or necessary". Ay, there's the rub! What you do not believe is good and necessary ... others believe they are. Even if you refuse to see it, a compromise was made: you took 52 words and rewrote them into 27. I took 14 words and rewrote them into 23. You edited some of the plot -- I preserved some of the plot. That's a compromise. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Overboard

Before there's another fight about this, may I ask uninvolved editors about the propriety of the Box Office section giving separate weekend-by-weekend grosses for seven weekends in a row? We don't do this for other films, so why would we do it here? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Italics

@Pyxis Solitary: WP:FILM does not italicize Deadline.com. The Wikipedia article Deadline.com is not italicized. Deadline.com does not even italicize Deadline.com. Dotcoms generally do not. From http://deadline.com/about-dhd/:

Deadline Hollywood — The Definitive Choice for Industry Insiders Deadline Hollywood (Deadline.com) first began in March 2006 as Deadline Hollywood Daily, the 24/7 Internet version of Nikki Finke’s long-running LA Weekly “Deadline Hollywood” print column. In 2009, Nikki’s site was purchased by PMC (formerly known as Mail.com Media Corporation). It has become the authoritative source for breaking news in the entertainment industry and readers check the site multiple times each day. Deadline Hollywood is regularly included on lists of top entertainment websites. Influential industry leaders and key decision-makers across many fields track Deadline many times a day and its postings regularly receive more reader comments than all of the entertainment industry news sites combined.

And as Template:Mojo title clearly shows, Box Office Mojo is not italicized. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Plot: "make love" vs. "have sex"

  1. On February 25, 2017, IP-only editor 172.91.91.69 changed the description "kiss and make love" to "have sex".
  2. On February 26, 2017, another IP-only editor (185.58.193.58) changed it back to "make love" and added "kiss for the first time".
  3. On February 27, 2017, editor 172.91.91.69 changed it again to "have sex".
  4. On the same date, I undid the reversal and returned content back to "kiss for the first time and make love".
  5. On March 11, 2017, editor 172.91.91.69 changed it again to "have sex".
  6. On the same date, I changed it back to "kiss for the first time and make love."

Scene in film: After spending several days together, Carol and Therese finally kiss on New Year's Eve. They pause their lovemaking to gaze tenderly at each other, and Carol whispers "My angel. Flung out of space."

The euphemisms for "make love" are: have sexual relations, be intimate, copulate, have sex. However, there is a difference between "making love" and "having sex". The difference is in the emotions involved. Making love involves sex — but having sex does not necessarily involve love.

What you see in the film is two women who, after several days in each other's company, express their love for each other through the emotions involved in the sex they engage in. Big difference. To describe what you see as merely "have sex" is not an apt description. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Make love" violates WP:EUPHEMISM, which specifically uses it as an example: "Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous." It's a POV interpretation and a clear vio of the Manual of Style. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Didn't you two get the strong clear message to stay away from each other? This will not end well. CapnZapp (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, it's been almost a month and we've stayed away from each other. And this particular case was a bright-line MOS issue that the other editor, to their credit, accepted.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot

I recently read through this article and I stumbled on the line, "Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank the clerk who returned the gloves and invites Therese to lunch." I thought, maybe, for the ease of readers, it could say, "Carol calls Frankenberg's to thank the clerk who returned the gloves and invites[her,] Therese[,] to lunch."Willowwalsh (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carol (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

19 July 2017 ♦ 31 July 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carol (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive for Paulson citation was a distorted capture. Replaced archive URL with better one. Other two modifications are ok. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carol (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Two out of three modifications are ok. The third modification corrupted the URL (the existing archive URL linked to archive without a problem). Not going to fix it with the tool link. Way too much hassle. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein scandal and Carol

Elizabeth Karlsen has revealed how Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment of an Italian actress affected an important screening of Carol: 'Carol' Producer Says Young Miramax Staffer Told Her of Naked Harvey Weinstein Encounter, October 8, 2017, Alex Ritman, The Hollywood Reporter. Cate Blanchett issued a statement regarding Weinstein: Cate Blanchett Responds to Harvey Weinstein Sexual Assault Scandal (EXCLUSIVE). October 10, 2017, Variety. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

FA request

Hello! After reading and rereading this article, I think it's a perfect candidate for a Featured Article. I believe, if done so in a timely manner, it could and should be featured sometime in December. --Matt723star (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophes

(Relocated, formerly 'Petty edits in Carol (film) )

You insist on making Haynes' into Haynes's (apostrophe + s). I provided a link to a grammatical source (http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp) in my summary when I undid your first edit. You went back and did it again. I again provided a link, this time to another source (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe) that supports the original way it appeared because the name is not spoken/pronounced with an extra s. If you insist that your way is the highway, please present your point of view in the article's talk page before making further identical edits dismissed as "typo" in the summary. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a rather impolite comment, User:Pyxis Solitary! If you check back you will find that there is no edit that I have made twice to this article, so your accusation that I am "insisting" or that I have undone one of your edits is misplaced. Further, I am afraid you are also incorrect to describe my edits as wrong or as "bad punctuation". As you probably know, different dictionaries advocate different approaches, and, for WP, editors should work from the MOS. The relevant part is tagged WP:POSS. This has a long section concerning singular nouns, including names, that end in 's'. You will see that the first method recommended, adding 's as I did, is never wrong or bad punctuation. So your statement in your edit that "you do not add 's' when the name ends in 's'" is simply mistaken. The second method is just to add ', but there is a condition attached to this method that it is only used where the additional 's' sound is not pronounced, noting that there are some cases where alternative pronunciations are possible. In the case of the word Haynes the 's' sound in the word follows a consonant 'n' sound (just as the examples "Jones's" and "Dickens's", based on usual pronunciation, in both of the links you sent me, which I wonder whether you have actually read?), making it easy to pronounce the additional 's' for the possessive, and this is certainly the way I would pronounce it and expect it to be spoken. Therefore the first approach is the correct one to use here. Further, the MOS advises consistency of approach within an article. If you review the Carol article as it is now, after your edits, you will see that we already have "Gonçalves's" as well as other uses of "Haynes's" that you have not changed (some are within citations, both British and American). I am not going to get drawn into an edit war on punctuation, but hope you might reflect and see that the comments you have made both about punctuation and my edits are incorrect. MapReader (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
MOS:POSS actually provides for either the apostrophe on its own, or "'s" with neither preferred, contrary to Pyxis Solitary's position. Personally, I would say "Haynes' collaborator", not "Haynes's collaborator". Using the examples at MOS:POSS I would say "James' house", not "James's house" but I find it more natural to say "Vilnius's location" rather than "Vilnius' location". It's interesting that some of the citations in the article use "'s". Despite my preference, MOS:POSS says "Apply just one of these two practices consistently within an article" and since we really shouldn't change the citation titles, I'd support use of "Haynes's" for consistency. Anyway, just my two cents. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the input. As you say, MOS offers two approaches, but the second requires consensus that pronunciation doesn't 'sound' the added 's'. My view of Haynes's is that I would pronounce the 's, and I note that both dictionaries that Pixis cited offer Jones's and Dickens's as examples where pronounciation directs towards 's. Haynes, Jones and Dickens all end with an 'ns' sound and in my view should take the same approach. My guess is that Pixis has read the part of one dictionary that offers a straight ' as a general option for all proper names (not an approach used in the UK imo), not realising that this is not the WP consensus MapReader (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
You made the first Haynes' = Haynes's edit on 16:00, December 5, 2017 and the second on 23:08, December 5, 2017 . This article passed GA review and was a candidate for FA, during which time it was scoured by editors well versed in MOS that picked it apart.
The first time I undid the s's I provided http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp in the summary to support my edit. It states: "One method, common in newspapers and magazines, is to add an apostrophe + s ('s) to common nouns ending in s, but only a stand-alone apostrophe to proper nouns ending in s. Examples: ... Mr. Jones' golf clubs ... Texas' weather". The second time I undid the edit I provided https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/apostrophe as reference. It states: "With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s: The court dismissed Bridges' appeal. Connors' finest performance was in 1991."
Haynes' appears 30 times in the article -- whereas Haynes's appears 7 times (in two quotations and five sources, and you do not alter quotations and the titles of sources). That it appears as Haynes's in a couple of citations is irrelevant when you take into account how it appears as Haynes' in the majority of others. Gonçalves's appears once in the entire article. The bottom line is to be consistent. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You didn't use the revert button when undoing my edits, so I was unaware when I made the second edit that you had changed, within minutes, my earlier edit. Thus your accusations were entirely misplaced. You need to address yourself to the consensus position within WP rather than choosing to cite the bits of various online dictionaries that you happen to like MapReader (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carol_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=953054061"