Talk:Rififi

Requested move

Du rififi chez les hommes → Rififi – Standard English title Girolamo Savonarola 08:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that "À bout de souffle" is located at Breathless --Lox (t,c) 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. Nightstallion 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

Just saw this film last night, so I'm fairly fresh on what happens. The summary is long, but as with the better heist movies, the action is quite complex. --Andersonblog (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

actors depicted on poster

Who are those actors depicted on Japanese movie poster? The poster is public domain and cropped images of those actors would be usefull for their articles. --Snek01 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that poster before and on research that's not the Japanse poster for Du rififi chez les hommes but for

Du rififi chez les femmes. So we shouldn't use it on this article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1989 heist

Mention is made of a 1989 heist where a hole was drilled in the floor of a travel agency. To me, the cite is confusing because it seems that the 1950s film heist was based on the 1989 heist. Is the travel agency heist date wrong--is it earlier than 1989? Or is the film the basis for the later theft? Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a type-o. Should've been 1898 I believe. Let me fix that on double-checking. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was still wrong! The book says 1899. My finger slipped. Thanks for pointing that out! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Use some sandpaper on the fingertips next time. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Remake

Not sure if there is a place in the article for this, but there was a planned remake of this film (good ol' Hollywood, huh?) with Al Pacino in the lead role. See Variety for the coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I read that as well, but since it's been announced years ago it seems to have been put off year after year after year. I could add some info, but I think we should wait for more updated information before writing anything, as that Variety article was written four years ago. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not likely to be any updated information. I think that it could be stated that a remake of this film was intended, regardless of whether plans were followed through. The attachment of Al Pacino seems pretty significant. I think the plan could be duly noted in a single sentence; not even necessary to touch upon in the lead section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 08:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's a good idea. What section do you think it should go in? Release? Reception? I'm leaning towards release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For lack of a better spot, this probably works. Though I'm not sure about the tone of the sentence. Like you said, it was years ago, so I am not sure it needs to sound like it could be made soon. Pacino's made a whole bunch of films since. Maybe revise it to be more about the "intent to produce"? The placement is fine for the time being, though. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rififi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing the article for GA. I've been keeping track of it for months and have made only minor changes to punctuation, adding a word or two, chasing away vandals, etc., so I believe I am not disqualified as a reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing style is not as clear as it could be. The second paragraph of the lead is particularly ripe for a rethink and rewrite. Under Plot, the phrase 'being taken up by' needs some attention. The semi-colon after 'she breaks off with him' should be a period to end the sentence. There's more: I'll go through and neaten it up myself if required.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I can see room for some very slight reference tweaks such as googlebooks URLs for the main references and a '[sic]' within the misspelled Variety article's title. I'll get on those tweaks myself as needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Nice touch with the screenshot of Dassin tied up!

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold, awaiting minor improvements Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Okay! I've tried to clean up the phrases and spelling errors you've noted. I'm not sure how to add the googlebooks url properly with citations, so I think i'll let you handle that. Feel free to re-write any parts of this or call me on more things. Thanks for taking the time to do the review! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going offline for a bit so gimme a few hours and then I'll roll up my sleeves and see how your new effort stacks up. I'll certainly put in some URLs for the main books. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Take your time. And thanks again! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

URLs still to come. Binksternet (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the major copy-editing. If there's anything else I can try to help with. Leave a message on my talk page. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

URLs are done. One last read-through before signing off on GA. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

<=In my opinion, the article now qualifies for Good Article status. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rifampicin

This is one of the few instances that a movie has inspired scientific nomenclature. If you don't understand, don't just remove. I have undone two removals of a sentence that I believe is essential for this article. I am very disappointed that instead of requesting clarification or assisting in changing the format, two users have instead deleted the entire work I've done. The point of Wikipedia is to move forward and add, not back and remove. If what is added is not to your liking, explain why and/or BUILD on what is done. I am more than willing to work on fixing the references (or, God forbid, someone else fix it instead) but removing everything because "reference cites article" gets us all in a safe nowhere. I can empathize with the worry of losing GAS but that should be a push to make the article better towards a FA candidate, and omission of something so huge is a detriment. Better to start now, no? --Cpt ricard (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Captain! I removed it the first time due to the lack of a citation, but I see it was added. I do find that it's not related enough to the film. Especially just by adding it to the opening paragraph. In my opinion, this would be like adding "Richard Nixon named his dog off this popular game" to the article on Checkers. Perhaps if we could find more information on how it was named after the film, does the person who named the drug go into any detail? I couldn't find much information about that. Perhaps if we work on this article more we could fit this drug information on the page. Otherwise, I think it's more appropriate for The drug's article alone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Well, I understand how from a film theory perspective it seems out of place. However, stepping back and looking at the big picture of the topic, I think it is a necessary addition, especially coming from a medical or pharmaceutical side of things - naming of drugs is usually very important. The other option I thought about was to make a separate section, but then you run the risk of having an incredibly small section write-up (I guess that's what you were looking for? More info to fill it up?). I'll do some more searches and see what I can come up with but I can't commit too much time in the next two weeks. I'd like to stress again that it may seem out of place in light of film study, but essential as a holistic article - we just have to work to make it fit in smoothly. --Cpt ricard (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd like to include it really as I found it while doing research to boost the article to GA. And yes that is part of the problem it feels like trivia tacked on the main lead. WP:Lead says that lead section should summarize what the article is about. With that extra bit there, it doesn't really follow the rules anymore. That's why I would find it good to add a "Legacy" section under reception. We could include things such as other things named Rififi. For example, most of my google searches for Rififi came up with a comedy club in New York of the same name. Or better yet, how this film specifically influenced other films. I'll leave it in the front for now, but if we can't really find much, I think the info should be moved to the drug's article. Thanks for listening! Happy editing! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, it just looks like trivia, and doesn't deserve to be in the article at all. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. We can't seem to find a consensus. As the article doesn't fit in the lead section per WP:Lead, i'll leave it here on the talk page.

Rififi was the inspiration for the naming of the antibiotic rifampicin. 

Anyone who can find a better section or more information to warrant this inclusion, should discuss it here again. Wiki-drama! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Constant removal is counterproductive; I'm not about to get into an edit war; I find it sad that something so important to the article outside the narrow scope of film studies will be omitted. I hope this will be reconsidered in the future by everyone involved and not just one person, otherwise I'd say a FA class is way out of the question (GA IMHO due to the omission is overshot, but hey - what do I know? Good luck. --Cpt ricard (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Image change

I changed the image of Dassin being tied up to a different one that shows Tony in the shot. I think this one is makes is easier to make out without having to click on it and plus you get to see who Tony is. I don't think there should be any obejections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe there's room in the article for both. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why show both when they both show the same thing and one says it better then the other though? We don't need to overload this page with images. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Title translation

To not get into an edit war, I want to discuss adding the "rough and tumble" definition to the intro paragraph. The lead should be a rough summary of the article (WP:LEAD) and it obviously can not take a hold of every bit of information. So I think adding too many definitions of the title is a bit of an overkill. As having more than one genre "whatevermovie is an American crime-comedy-thriller-drama" is too much, I think adding this extra definition is too much and makes the prose a bit gross, especially when it's title is mentioned in the article at an appropriate section. Thoughts anyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the article, but quick facts in the article do not need summarizing. If we briefly explain the translation in the article, it does not need a mention in the lead. I'm all for avoiding ugly prose. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead should say something about the main question an English speaking reader has, which is what the hell does the title mean? Even if approximately? They shouldn't have to sift it out of the "music" section far down the article somewhere. Incidentally I've read that rififi may also refer to rough-and-tumble sex, which might explain why the title refers specifically to men, perhaps wishing to avoid that connotation (which is put back in with the song!). Only a native French speaker can address that (that's not me). I'm also curious as the etymology of the French word (obviously not a subject for the lede). Is it related to rapere, raffle, rapscallion, raffish, all of which have to do with grabbing or raking something? Where did it come from? Anybody know? Incidentally, the antibiotic rifampicin was named for this film by a Frenchman-- I suppose that deserves mention as a cultural allusion section (it's part of the lede in the rifampin article). SBHarris 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The rifampicin input has already been discussed on this talk page and it's sort of trivial information that doesn't relate to the article well. Rififi in the film is slang that does not translate directly so you can only get an idea of what it means. Since it's not exact and only a vague description, I would not include this still. As for the rifampicin, unless more information can be found on why it was named after this film, I do not think it's substantial enough info on it's own. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I just went up and read the TALK page. Excuse me. I didn't realize that you and user:Binksternet actually WP:OWN this article. I'll quit wasting my time. Hopefully anybody else who works on it, or tries to, will read this entire page first. SBHarris 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not own the article, but if additions to it are made that we do not think are needed, they will probably be removed. If I really felt that I owned it, I would just continuously revert the article. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead you wait 18 days, THEN revert it. Who do you think you're fooling? SBHarris 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "fool" anyone. You were not bringing up any more points to the conversation . I honestly thought I reverted it before, but as I see from the previous edit, I did not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a rough translation note. I think since Rififi is translated in the article but Rififi chez les hommes is not, that could use a definition. If you click on the cross symbol, it will re-direct the user to the definition now. Is that good for everyone? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rififi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015754/http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2247 to http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rififi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903001342/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/du-rififi-chez-les-hommes-rififi/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/du-rififi-chez-les-hommes-rififi/

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) 19:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Big Deal on Madonna Street

A few years after Rififi, the Italians made a wonderful parody of the film with "Big Deal on Madonna Street." The NY Times' headlines its review "Italian Parody of 'Rififi." Those who enjoyed Rififi should be made aware of the Italian take off. Abenr (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Abenr, I've added it to the See also section. Daß Wölf 20:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)