Jump to content

Talk:List of film memorabilia

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of film memorabilia. 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) 09:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowe's jockstrap

[edit]

It is notable but not iconic. What are the criteria for inclusion in this list? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd think if an item was seen in film, later sold and/or is notable, and a Wikipedia article exists for it, then it could be included in this list. A friend of mine bought a drum from the 1933 King Kong film, but there isn't an article or a source about it. But the Crowe jockstrap you added should probably be fine. Much may be missing, such as the models of Enterprise used in Star Trek films. And does this article include television shows as 'film'? Probably not, but if so there is an article about the Book of Shadows from Charmed (maybe as a See also). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy.
Yes, I agree. Good points. If it has its own article, then it should certainly be notable.
So, Clarityfiend, what sayeth thee? May I restore it?
Best wishes to you both,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link(s):

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let others decide. I'm nominating the article for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it survived AfD and will likely make the main page as a DYK. There is no discussion on the scope of this list, so why shouldn't this item now be added? Any objections, Clarityfiend, Randy Kryn or others? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the AfD. And yes, it should be added because it is one of the only Wikipedia pages on individual pieces of film memorabilia. The Ruby slippers is another, but after that the picking is scarce. So our only film memorabilia articles are for a pair of shoes and a jockstrap? {EDIT:Found three dress articles too, added those to category:Memorabilia). Film editors, take note. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the AfD result, I can't stop you from adding it. However, the entries that are currently on the list are nearly all very prominent items from iconic films (the only real exceptions being McQueen's racing suit from Le Mans and the Winkie costume from The Wizard of Oz; McQueen's mystique and connection to racing and the uber-iconicness of WoZ are IMO mitigating qualities). The same does not describe either the jockstrap or Cinderella Man. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop us? Dear, Clarityfiend, all you need to say is that you insist it not be in the article. Then there would be no consensus. I feel pretty strongly about it being in the article, and I'm guessing Randy Kryn is somewhere between 'prefer' and 'really would like'. So, if you really feel strongly, then say, and we can get other views. If you are in the 'somewhat prefer' camp, then please considering saying "meh, okay". (I'm a 'meh' person at Wikipedia. If it's not a big deal, I let it go, but that's me.)
Now, maybe the issue is the scope of this list. You seem to think the criteria are very prominent items from iconic films. I feel that if it has an article, it is in. I have good reasons for the scope to be such, and those include ones pointed out by Randy Kryn. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made my opinion pretty clear. I can't "insist" on anything with regard to this item. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On this I'm in the "meh, 'kay" camp (not much excitement or drama here in camp, and the campfires are pretty lame and lit late and are just enough to singe the marshmellows, but it's okay) because the thing is pretty gross. But the point that shoves it over the line (with a sharp stick) is that this piece of memorabilia has an article. I can find only the five film memorabilia pages listed above, and only one for a piece of television memorabilia (the Book of Shadows from Charmed). So a memorabilia-article deficient encyclopedia - unless I'm missing a big batch from the Star Trek and Star Wars pages - has to take what it can get, just as Crowe decided to take his jock strap from the set (where was adequate Hollywood security when we needed it?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a fourth dress page (Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Randy. I totally agree, except for the sharp stick. I'd shove it over the line with some sort of bomb disposal robot. But seriously, yes, we're short of these items with articles. This does make the jockstrap a rarity. We're always going on about writing the article first and such, and here is an item with an article. How can that be out while other items are in? And looking at opinions about scope below, it is clear that going beyond prominent items from iconic films is preferred. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this list article

[edit]

Should it be:

  • A: Prominent items from iconic films
  • B: Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
  • C: Something else?


  • B We have few in the category, so add it. If it has an article, it is notable enough for this list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add to my criterion, any item that is really a prominent item from an iconic film. So, B + A. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • C I think any item which has an article could lead to a bloated list, so would suggest that it be limited to items which have sold for a certain amount. Open to suggestions as to what would be considered a reasonable threshold ($100,000?).yorkshiresky (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there are only a handful of items that have articles. The items currently in the list are mostly not articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A and B, if it a big ticket well-known item (or a batch of big-ticket items, like that Debbie Reynolds sale), sure, and if it has an article that is saved on AfD, sure. WikiProject:Memorabilia editors, arise and be counted. Personal note: I wandered into the North American Wiki Conference in October, and the Ohio State University Library had Mr. Bojangles shoes on exhibit - now there's a piece of memorabilia worth writing home about. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just go with any item that receives reasonable coverage in the mainstream media (i.e. not auction catalogs or enthusiast sites/magazines). This would certainly encompass the first two criteria, but an item such as the Star Wars camera is neither iconic nor does it have its own article but probably should still be included here on the basis of its sale price. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds pretty good, Betty Logan. What is a Star wars camera? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just picked a random example at List_of_film_memorabilia#Star_Wars_series. It is not what I would call a "prominent item" in that it carries recognizable cultural significance (such as the ruby slippers or James Bond's Aston Martin) but it's a noteworthy sale nonetheless. If something is making its way into The Guardian or New York Times it is difficult to argue against it being listed here. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Betty Logan. Fair enough. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_film_memorabilia&oldid=1201506815"