Jump to content

Talk:Harold Ramis

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


Canadian

[edit]

How easy is it to mistake a person for a Canadian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambisset (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It's possible that he is mistaken for a Canadian because of his associations with a number of Canadian-born comic actors, through Second City. However, I can't say I've ever heard people say, "Oh, that Harold Ramis, such a Canadian!" Unless it keeps coming up in public discourse, I don't see why the article should mention this. --Dgilman 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free image

[edit]

Is it possible who can upload a free image from Flickr? Egon Eagle (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters III

[edit]

Will Ramis be reprising his role in Ghostbusters for the third installment in 2012? does anybody know? Nojwerdna 13:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty safe to say the answer to this is now 'no'. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Last Name

[edit]

His Last name is Ramis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bill Murray a zombie?

[edit]

I quote the article: "After passing away on February 24th his friend Bill Murray issued a statement that he will miss him very much." Larry Dunn (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting the awkward wording. I've removed that entire sentence. The cited source actually didn't say anything about "missing" him, and a biography is not an obituary. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations Table

[edit]

If we're going to have this table, we can't rightfully exclude Caddyshack II (despite how dreadful it was, and still is). Ramis co-wrote this sequel, and it would require "X"'s for Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase and Randy Quaid. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 04:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - this is missing and should be added. Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I wonder if it is worthile including the actors in the two "Analyse" films. Obviously, he worked with them twice as there was a sequel but there is no crossover of these actors in any other Ramis film.Graemec2 (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. First time I saw this page, my thought when looking at the table was like yours "Which of these things is not like the other..." Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
An interesting aside note (though probably not for this table) is that the Reitman-produced Heavy Metal features Candy, Flaherty, Levy and Ramis. Doc talk 02:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why creating these kinds of tables is a bad idea. Apart from being WP:SYNTH, they could go on forever in all directions because the nature of film and television is inherently collaborative. It's not notable that writers are also directors and actors and that they frequently collaborate, to the point where we keep track of it ourselves in a table.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Place of death

[edit]

Regarding the uncertainty about his place of death: At least one version of the AP obituary does say he died in Glencoe, Illinois. See [1] (caption under photo #3 of 4); [2] (same caption, found on the left side of the page). Other versions of the same AP obit just say something like "Chicago area" or "suburban Chicago". There are some older reports (such as this one from 2009) that confirm that he had lived in Glencoe,[3] and at any rate the private memorial service for him was held at North Shore Congregation Israel in Glencoe.[4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up with his son, he lived in the same town as I did, Glencoe, and yes, his memorial service was in Glencoe. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to death

[edit]

A editor has been removing mentions of memorials left to Ramis, saying wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But that policy applies to not creating articles to memorialize otherwise unnotable subjects. Not to remove mention of memorials as such, especially when noted in major reliable sources such as Huffington Post and the New York Daily News. Removing the material detracts from a comprehensive encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, with 3 good sources, it is reasonable to believe that this material is notable to the individual's death. It is not just any memorial; it is one made by a place significant to the individual's legacy. Just my two cents. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline does not mean it's OK to have memorial sections, or to use an article to memorialize a celebrity. That paragraph is a memorial tribute, nothing more. How do we know? Because It's non-notable: Every celebrity who dies suddenly gets a fan memorial somewhere or other, and of course it's always at someplace significant to the individual's legacy — fans don't memorialize on their own doorsteps. It's indiscriminate trivia and it violates Wikipedia is not a fan page. As for "three good sources", I don't know where to begin. First, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and second, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements," and that is all on the subject. It simply states that we should not memorialize the non-notable on the site, not that a notable individual cannot have anything about them written after their death that reflects the reaction to their death. I would say that not everybody who dies, who is famous, has a major publisher write an article about the memorializing acts that follow said death. It does not eliminate the value of good sources. Trivia can be seen as items that don't get full features in reliable sources; this did. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me please repeat what I wrote earlier that seems to have been disregarded: The guideline does not mean it's OK to have memorial sections, or to use an article to memorialize a celebrity. And we run into this issue frequently, including at Philip Seymour Hoffman, to name a recent case off the top of my head.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:NOTNEWS merely states that Wikipedia should not be a source of primary information, not that items published by third-party news sources cannot be included. WP:NOTFANSITE mentions nothing about not including certain good sources, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE also says absolutely nothing of value about this situation. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, unless there are some opinions other than those of the single individual holding this information off the page that arise in the near future, or a good policy argument is put forth, I really don't see the harm in including the information. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are misreading WP:NOTNEWS, which says clearly (boldface added): "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and event. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on ... celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It is absolutely routine and typical that fans create tributes when a celebrity dies, especially unexpectedly. And reporting on fan activity is a hallmark of WP:FANSITE.
And for goodness' sakes, the very first sentence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE says it's applicable: "[M]erely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." So whether "a major publisher" writes an article "about the memorializing acts" is irrelevant: Newspapers and magazines cast a wide net over what to report, including things that in terms of an encyclopedia are trivial.
At base, the tribute material is contentious in that it appears to violate several guidelines. When that happens, you seek consensus whether to add it or not. The way Wikipedia operates, the burden is on the person who wants to add something to show that it is notable, relevant, etc. The talk page is where to do it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting debate. NotNews talks about the enduring notability of event or person for their inclusion period on Wikipedia, not every aspect of every notable page. I would also say that the death of someone is clearly not routine news reporting, nor is the singular act of a reaction to their death. You have not provided specific language from FANSITE that supports your view, though INDISCRIMINATE would provide argumentation worthy of calling the addition controversial/contensious. I don't think it is enough to remove material from the site if there was a wider discussion going on here, though I would also say that if only 3 of us are arguing for or against the material, then your argumentation for the fact's controversy would be enough to kill the addition-- 1 versus 2 is not enough for a consensus, and potential controversy is enough to keep something out in that situation. While I'm just not sure why you feel it is so controversial, I won't fight for the material in a draw of opinion if you have that strong an opinion. Short of additional comments, feel free to revert it out if it is replaced. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I follow many deceased actors/musicians/politicians/etc Wiki pages and I can think of none of them that have memorial sections. Why would we put something on a page only to remove it two or three years down the road when it was "officially" not-notable? Seems to be akin to WP:FANCRUFT to me... Ckruschke (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harold Ramis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-writer of Groundhog Day

[edit]

He is credited throughout the article as the 'writer' of Groundhog Day, indeed it is noted as his 'masterpiece'. Yet, he was only co-writer - the Groundhog Day musical that has opened in London recently credits Danny Rubin as 'co-writer' of Groundhog Day with Ramis (https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/aug/18/groundhog-day-tim-minchin-bill-murray). My memory from watching the DVD extras is that Rubin had a script worked out already and Ramis's main contribution was to turn it into a straightline narrative whereas Rubin's original had it starting in the middle (where Phil Connors is already trapped and reliving the days).

I'm not knocking Ramis here, but I think that it is a little unfair on Rubin to give the impression that Groundhog Day is all Ramis's work. GlenUsk2 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harold Ramis. 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.

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) 11:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harold Ramis. 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.

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) 02:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Harold Ramis

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Harold Ramis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "New Yorker":

  • From The New Yorker: Mouly, Francoise; Kaneko, Mina. "Cover Story: Bert and Ernie's 'Moment of Joy'". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 17, 2015. "It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," said Jack Hunter, the artist behind next week's cover
  • From Richard Pryor: Als, Hilton (September 13, 1999). "A Pryor Love". The New Yorker. New York City: Condé Nast.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written paragraph

[edit]

Paragraph says

"Ramis said in 2009 that he planned to make a third Ghostbusters film for release either in mid-2011[23] or for Christmas 2012.[24] The film was eventually made and released in 2016, although directed and co-written by Paul Feig, not Ramis. "

Of course not Ramis, Ramis died in 2014, and he was sick since 2010, so second sentence doesn't make sense at all. Baloglu (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the phrasing 'The film' implies that the 2016 film had some involvement in the 2016 film. Was the 2016 film anything to do with the film he envisioned in 2009? 2A00:23C4:A182:4B00:AC1A:8100:E713:F97A (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ramis - film critic

[edit]

Harold Ramis filled in for Roger Ebert on the Ebert & Roeper show. Ramis reviewed A Good Year, Harsh Times, Copying Beethoven, For Your Consideration, and Fur. The only film Ramis gave a thumbs up to was For Your Consideration back in 2006. Roeper showed film clips of Harold Ramis' work in the film industry at the beginning of the show. Splurgealot (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harold_Ramis&oldid=1209960212"