Talk:The Thin Man (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orphaned references in The Thin Man (film)

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 The Thin Man (film)'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 "Mannix":

• From Manhattan Melodrama: The Eddie Mannix Ledger, Los Angeles: Margaret Herrick Library, Center for Motion Picture Study.
• From Cairo (film): "The Eddie Mannix Ledger." Margaret Herrick Library, Center for Motion Picture Study (Los Angeles).

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⚡ 15:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

cleanup

cleaned up the article a bit - improved phrasing here and there (mostly in the first chunk of the article before plot) - for example, changed things such as "the thin man of the title" to "the titular thin man", added correct film genre (comedy-mystery), eliminated immaterial or unreferenced lines + POV ("Their dog asta, played by skippy, was also a popular character") as well as one of the aforementioned "DVD packaging" type descriptions ("...a flirtatious married couple who banter wittily as they solve crimes"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.58.136 (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Allmovie

• The Thin Man at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot

Much of this article, the plot section in particular, reads as if it had been lifted from the DVD packaging. ("With a drink in his hand and a smirk on his face, the detective stumbles off to find clues. The mystery deepens as the empty martini glasses and dead bodies pile up.") It's good writing, just not appropriate for this setting. PurpleChez (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart

Needs explanation of Stewart's uncredited appearance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotwisdom (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I've done all of the movie pages I've been working on in the same manner. Do you want to go back and change all of them? -- Zoe - Well, I don't know. Probably not, though if they read poorly then yes, I will. Usually publicists and agents are the only people who mention awards before plot. And if you're defensive about your writing, it might be less stressful to write where others can't edit it freely.  :-) Cheers, Koyaanis Qatsi, Tuesday, July 9, 2002

I'm more than happy for people to edit my things when it's important to make things right, but when you're changing things just for the sake of making them fit your idea of what it should look like, then there's no point in my making any contributions, is there? And what makes you the arbiter of what these entries should look like? -- Zoe

Zoe, I don't think that is the point KQ is making. Different people have different ideas on the way articles should look and be arranged. It just so happens, that in wikipedia we tend to define a subject before going into the details. That's why KQ did a little rearranging -- so that the reader can first get an idea on what the movie is about before learning the awards it got. It's a matter of taste, but also a quasi-non-policy convention here. --maveric149, Wednesday, July 10, 2002

As I said, I have no problem with others changing my entries. Funny though, I got a "well done" from Danny yesterday. But now I'm told that what I'm doing is wrong. It seems like it's a matter of taste, but I'm told that there's a certain form that I should follow. Can you please tell me what that form is? -- Zoe

As with all good articles, first define what the subject is by stating important info. For a movie that would be a very general, one or maybe two sentence statement about the genre/plot (year of release, director, main actors and awards can be sprinkeled here or there within the definition. A definition should be about as informative as: "Alien is a science fiction horror film set aboard an interplanetary cargo carrier whose crew encounters a deadly alien. The movie was released in .... was directed by ... and won ..." Any combo of that info would make for a great definition. BTW, I also think you are doing a great job and I'm sure KQ thinks the same. Just, like I said, we tend to do things a certain way around here -- not that what we do is the most correct or only way to do things, its just the way things have evolved (like our tendency to bold titles on the first line of articles, or only link the first occurance of a term). :-) --maveric149, Wednesday, July 10, 2002

- I continued the dialogue on user talk:Zoe, Zoe.  :-) Sorry if I was curt. Koyaanis Qatsi, Wednesday, July 10, 2002