Talk:Waitress (2007 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

On 12 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Waitress (film) to Waitress (2007 film). The result of the discussion was moved.

Spoiler

Someone should put a proper SPOILER WARNING header on the page cause I don't have any idea how 74.100.204.98 05:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's a spoiler "template" that can be inserted, but Wikipedia's Help on templates is so geekily written I can't decipher it (and I'm a technical writer!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAvailableName (talk • contribs) 09:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Waitress.jpg

Image:Waitress.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Plot' sections needs improvement.

With all due respect, this has got to be one of the most poorly written movie plots here in Wikipedia. The characters Becky, Dawn and Joe are mentioned in the storyline without even being introduced. I would have tried to improve it, but I haven't seen the movie yet. Could somebody who has seen it please try and improve the section? Thanks! Julyda4th (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde?

Umm, who is this "Blonde" whose daughter plays the toddler Lulu? IMDB gives her name only as Kira Grace.

Plot appears to contain a made-up scene

The plot currently says, "While a receptionist at the doctor’s office notices her disappointment, and even mentions to her that she can have the pregnancy "taken care of" in a city about two hours away, she decides to keep the baby nonetheless." Just watched the film, either a different cut exists that is not mentioned anywhere, or the person who wrote this synopsis entirely made up this scene, because it sure is not in the film I've seen. Maybe it's from the stage musical? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 12:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waitress (film) → Waitress (2007 film) – Dab from other films. While none of them have articles titled "Waitress (YYYY film)", I don't think the absence of a punctuation mark works as sufficient disambiguation versus Waitress!, and Waitress: The Musical (film) says "also known as Waitress". So, given WP:PRIMARYFILM, I think it's best to fully disambiguate here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the 2007 one has 17,404 views but the 2023 one has 4,995 the 1981 one has 627[[1]] which probably isn't enough for a PDAB. Also per WP:SMALLDETAILS while the presence of an exclamation mark or subtitle can distinguish the absence generally doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No clear primary topic for this ambiguous title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDIFFS. The three films all have non-identical titles, with each at its respective best title, so further disambiguating the title is not required; they are already fully disambiguated. Any possible confusion is easily handled by the current hatnote. Add to all that that this film gets far more views than the other two combined, and the case for leaving well enough alone is even stronger. There's no problem here. Station1 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 are probably known as "Waitress" and the title "Waitress (film)" could be any of them. Subtitles are often dropped here and in the real world. see WP:SUBTITLE and exclamation marks are also, see MOS:TM. Per WP:ATDAB when a qualifier is ambiguous we should generally use a full qualifier even if other titles are at their best title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say all 3 are probably known as "Waitress" is pure speculation. Checking the reliable sources at Waitress: The Musical indicates that's not the case. That's not to say that someone landing on Waitress (film) might not possibly want one of the other two less popular films, but it's unlikely (they'd more likely be searching for Waitress and wind up on the dab page), and for those rare readers the hatnote guides them to the correct article as easily as if they wound up on the dab page. WP:ATDAB applies to cases where the title "may have been already used for other articles" (not the case here) and even then to "use only as much additional detail as necessary", assumimg there's no primary topic. Station1 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Crouch, Swale. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.