Jump to content

Talk:Top Hat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTop Hat has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
December 26, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

As far as I am aware, the lyrics to Irving Berlin's "Top Hat, White Tie and Tails" are under copyright, either to the Berlin Estate or their assignees. Saving objection I propose to remove them from the article. Dermot 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Dermot[reply]


Savolya (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)This section is neutral and comprehensive. Great detail and insight to the musical production of this film.Savolya (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)savolya[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears neutral, stable and generally well-written. The images, including one with a fair-use rationale, appear to be in order, though that isn't my field of expertise. The referencing is a seldom-used style, and might be more easily read in a note-and-bibliography style, but appears consistent and therefore acceptable.

The main problem for the article is the final two sections, "awards" and "contemporary reviews". The former section lacks any references. The latter is in bullet point form, and should be re-written as a paragraph paragraphs of the article in normal text style. The section "Musical numbers and choreography" is laid out as a list, and I think might read better if changed to normal paragraph style, but it doesn't bother me as much - and it seems OK in terms of WP:EMBED. But the two final sections need to be sorted for a GA listing. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and review section need to be re-written, got it. I'll get on it as soon as I have enough free time available. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - i made one tweak for balance. Thanks for your work. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, can't wait to see it get to FA status someday! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gross Revenue

[edit]

The gross revenue is listed as $1,782,000. This is the gross domestic revenue. The film also made $1,420,000 in foreign revenue, for a total gross of $3,202,000, and a profit of $1,325,000. Perhaps the overall gross should be listed to give the correct impression that this was one of the biggest hits of 1935. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.131.95 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venice

[edit]

although the gondolas and canals are supposed to be some kind of fantasy equivalent of Venice, the only lines in the script just refer to it as "Italy."

billybob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.199.168 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters mention several times that they are going to the Lido. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Lido 45.46.206.14 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

homosexuality

[edit]

The most startling thing about the screenplay is the characters' assumption that Fred Astaire's and Edward Everett Horton's characters are engaged in an affair! How this got past the Hayes Office is hard to understand. Why it is not discussed in this article is even harder to understand. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DVD release

[edit]

Are there sources out there for the DVD releases. It seems like a small thing to be missing n an otherwise Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. While, numbers-wise, some (note, some) might argue that there were enough supporters to result in a move, there was no compelling reasoning for why WP:NATURAL -- which explicitly lists examples of capitalization differentiating titles -- should not apply here. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat → Top Hat (film) – At the moment, this is only distinguished from our article Top hat by an upper-case "H". I think that we should make it more obvious that this article is about the film, not the hat. — --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as unnecessary precision, see WP:PRECISION. I think it's fairly obvious that this article is about the film, we have to grant our readers some basic intelligence, if people want we could add an "about" hatnote. The other "Top Hat" entries are rather obscure, this is clearly the primary meaning. What is it proposed to do with "Top Hat", will it redirect to this article or what? PatGallacher (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's among the more controversial titling conventions. I see nothing wrong with examining articles on a case-by-case basis. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "examining articles on a case-by-base basis" means choosing titles on a case-by-case basis based on the personal preferences of the very small self-selected sample of editors who happen to be looking at each case, who in turn rationalize their preference by cherry-picking and ignoring the rules as needed to support their preference, then we might as well choose titles by tossing a coin. There is something wrong with that; something very wrong. It means there is no solid ground on which titles are selected, which means they're all subject to change at any time, depending solely on the preferences of whoever happens to watch or stumble upon a given case. If that's what you mean by "examining articles on a case-by-base basis", that's a disaster. --B2C 05:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL and (unnecessary) WP:PRECISION. If we're just going to ignore the rules for no stated good reason, why even have policy and guidelines? The rules state that capitalization is a natural way to distinguish titles. That's what we have here. Going beyond that is doing something based on how we personally would rather see the title, which is exactly the type of irrelevant argument WP:Closing discussions#Consensus says to ignore.

    If you have an issue with WP:NATURAL, take up there. But, as has been noted, be aware that a change in that affects countless articles. Do we really want to change all these titles? --B2C 05:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom, and because there are multiple uses of "Top Hat" with both words having a capitalized first letter. There are not "countless" articles affected; there are about 150, and if this move is made I will fix them myself. bd2412 T 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL as it stands. Per the guidelines policy, there is enough of a distinction between "top hat" and "Top Hat" that further disambiguation is not needed. In addition, the 1935 film appears to be the primary topic for the specific term "Top Hat" since the other topics that match the term are the 2011 musical based on the film as well as a character from a children's television series. Neither seem to challenge the film in terms of pop culture importance. The other disambiguation terms do not match exactly. BDD mentions that this distinction is "among the more controversial titling conventions". Maybe this is true in some RM discussions, I reviewed WP:AT's talk page archives and did not find any recent wider discussion about removing the titlecase clause as insufficient disambiguation. I would be open to discussing its removal in a RfC, but considering that it is part of policy, the clause should apply here in the meantime. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsense. There is no policy that says how much ambiguity is too much, or how much precision is enough. Besides, there's at least one other topic named Top Hat. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not nonsense. The policy page says, "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other; so use appropriate disambiguation techniques, such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages, to help readers find the article they want." The example of Red Meat vs. red meat is what applies here. If we had closely competing topics that share the term "Top Hat", I would support disambiguation of them all, but the film article easily outpaces the derivative musical article, and the other article is actually a redirect to a list article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. That section clearly allows that one might sometimes let case alone by used, but other times use a disambig page. The point of that section is to tell editors what to consider, not to predetermine the outcome. In this case, with the multiple ambiguity, the disambig page makes the most sense. The use of case only to distinguish title is sometimes tolerated, as in the famous Red Meat case but has never been very popular or widely approved of. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, I did not see what you said at the beginning of the discussion and did not realize you were aware of the "Red Meat" example. I can't agree that disambiguation by titlecase is "widely frowned upon" since the related talk page showed no real discussion about removing that clause. For what it's worth, I've changed TopHat to redirect to TopHat (telescope), though I would be fine with making a move to be more direct per the same policy. I still think that for the term "Top Hat", the film is the primary topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At least two editors have tried to "fix" the Red Meat problem; it would be really helpful to recognizability, as well as precision, if the title said it was about the comics. I'm sure it was discussed elsewhere, but I don't recall where. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2013 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Top Hat. 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) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Top_Hat&oldid=1208174044"