Talk:David Manning (fictitious writer)

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: 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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Parody

In 2004 a parody featuring Manning had Manning giving Garfield two thumbs up.

Who did this parody and where? The article goes on to talk more about it, but never does it say anything that actually identifies the parody to anybody who hasn't already seen it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved that section here: In 2004, a parody commercial featuring Manning had Manning giving "Garfield" two thumbs up aired on television, even though the film Garfield was distributed by 20th Century Fox, not Columbia. Most people said the parody was a stealth advertisemen for the movie because they were both released around the same time. The parody was shown on TV and said "no matter how bad your film is, dont worry because Manning will have something good to say!". The parody seemingly stopped airing on TV in August 2004, most believe because of legal issues or that the movie was no longer in theaters. The movie was released to stores a few months later.

First, it's unlikely this ever happened. Secondly, it's uncited and conatains speculation. But most importantly, it doesn't make sense: If it was Columbia, why would Columbia spend money advertizing another studio's film? If it was 20th Century Fox, why would they advertize their own film as being "bad"? Crazysuit 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This RM has been open for two weeks. It seems unlikely that agreement will be found to do this move, but there is a further option you might consider. This page is in the category Category:Nonexistent people used in hoaxes. The most frequent DAB that I see for articles in that category is 'hoax'. That tag would clearly be justified, if you want to use it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Manning (fictitious writer) → David Manning (pseudonym) – Beyond his review quotes being attributed to a specific newspaper, Manning doesn't seem to be fleshed out as a fictional character and is primarily just a pseudonym. --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC) McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure: Based on what the article says, "David Manning" was not just an ordinary pseudonym. It seems to have been more of a fictitious person created for misleading/fraudulent promotional purposes rather than an ordinary case of just someone publishing their work using an ordinary pseudonym. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Manning (fictitious writer). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530051629/http://media.harryshearer.com/?ProgramID=128 to http://media.harryshearer.com/?ProgramID=128
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713104150/http://www.sony-sucks.com/crime/5-sony-bucks to http://www.sony-sucks.com/crime/5-sony-bucks

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]