Talk:Conversations with Other Women

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conversations with Other Women article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

No Synopsis?

Why is this page full of technical details ("Helena Bonham-Carter wore her own Prada shoes"??)? There is no information about the story itself or the characters... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendive (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whomever wrote the synopsis did not understand the movie, or at least it reads that way...maybe they tried to leave out spoilers? anyway, i think it would be preferable to lay out the whole plot (e.g., they were married, her children, etc...) and insert a spoiler warning rather than gloss over the complexity of the relationship(s) and the film as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.17 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Hans Canosa

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Hans Canosa per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Canosa. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 07:46Z

Fair use rationale for Image:Conversations With Other Women.jpg

Image:Conversations With Other Women.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

Just a few bits that seemed from less than a neutral point of view to me...all from the "Soundtrack" and "Split screen" sections of the article. Those paragraphs in general could probably use a review.

"The film's soundtrack is as unusual and precise as its visual design."
"The unprecedented sex scene"
"Conversations with Other Women represents an innovative development in the long tradition of experiments in split screen."
"Conversations simple yet brilliant innovation in split screen"

Smakian (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding your thoughts. If I get a chance I'll come back and take a look or maybe somebody else will before I get here. By adding your thoughts (all too often tags come without explanation) with the tag we can work at making this article better so thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]