# Talk:Billy Elliot

Isn't it about time that someone made an article for the musical? I'd do it, but, despite having seen it, I don't know enough and the website's not the most helpful. Cheers! —This unsigned comment was added by Willnz0 (talk • contribs) .

I do believe there is a seperate article for that, which can be found here --JJMan 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ragner

The infobox was missing alot and had some errors, I fixed it all and did a little cleanup on the page. I made a plot section and will do a little more work to raise the page's rating. If you think I messed up or want some help, please write here or better, leave me a message Caf3623 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just added ALL of the nominations and awards that the film recieved from 2000-2001. It took forever. Also, I have looked over this article and really think that it can be upgraded to B-Class, so I changed the assesment on it to B. Caf3623 06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should be Start-class, no offense to you on all your hard work but check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines for information that all articles need to even be considered for a higher class, B-class is very close to being complete. Cbrown1023 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did the information for the first part of the paragraph come from? I don't recall it being in the movie at all but maybe I'm wrong? --Breezy hwesta 09:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is stated that Billy has to miss ballet due to the strike.  I remember in the film however, Billy's dad finding him doing ballet and banning him from doing it any more.  Billy agrees and tries to keep his promise to begin with, but partly due to his mother's letter and partly due to his friend, and also due to his instructor, he goes to the audition in London and is accepted for ballet school.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.152.148 (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 

I suppose that the Adam Cooper in the link in the cast is not the correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.79.152 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2007

The sentence about this 1939 film (based on the novel of the same title by A.J. Cronin) being an inspiration for Billy Elliot should be included in this article, because it is factually correct.  Also, it was never deleted before, Mr. Cooper (only the wording was altered to make it more speculative) - you took this upon yourself, so you're wrong there too.  In its present form, "may have been," it is already a tangential statement.  I read an interview (I am looking for the url) wherein Lee Hall explicitly said that this film left an impression on him for various reasons (for one, it is partially set in Newcastle, his place of birth).  The powerful sense of solidarity and socialist principles bodied forth in The Stars Look Down really resonated with him.  He also spoke of how the gritty film, directed by Carol Reed, was so visually memorable, even saying that certain shots from The Stars Look Down were deliberately echoed in Billy Elliot, such as the interminable rows of miners' houses in the pit village and the children playing in the mud outside the houses (Hall had a girl always standing in the alley near Billy's home).  There are undeniable correlations between the two works (aside from the larger theme of striking miners and a son trying to escape from a life in mining), one being that Davey's (played by Michael Redgrave) younger brother, Hughie, chases his dream of a life away from the pits via football and carries his cleats around with him everywhere (YouTube), a precursor to Billy with his ballet shoes.  In the film version of another Cronin novel, The Citadel, the protagonist offhandedly says, "What are you supposed to go down a mine in - dancing pumps?" (YouTube) - the list of similarities goes on... 
Writers frequently influence other writers - see Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence for further discussion.  They often do not own up to this fact for a variety of reasons, but Hall has done so in this case.  While clearly not his only source of inspiration, Cronin's story nevertheless deserves to be recognized.  In the Scotsman interview, the screenwriter plainly states that he hopes to remake The Stars Look Down.  There is also footage of the 1939 film shown during the opening number of Billy Elliot the Musical, which is also entitled The Stars Look Down as a tribute to Cronin's work.  Furthermore, the opening song's chorus is strikingly close the text ("We'll stand as one, beneath the sun" - obviously a dramatic counterpoint to "the stars look down") of Cronin's novel (also depicted in the film - YouTube), when Davey argues at a debate for the nationalization of mines: "I do not necessarily believe that everything under the sun should be publicly owned.  I might, of course, say that coal mining is not something under the sun."   Denying that there is any connection between these two works when there is abundant evidence to the contrary is downright ridiculous.  I suggest that you first see The Stars Look Down (or even better, read the novel) before haphazardly deleting information that is entirely valid - this is an act of ignorance on your part and quite UNencyclopedic.  One must give credit where credit is due.  Purpleroyale (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a source, quote the source and there is no problem. Otherwise this all constitutes your opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Purpleroyale, I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research very very carefully. The interview in The Scotsman categorically does not support your claim of the influence of The Stars Look Down on Billy Elliot, merely that Hall & Bryden were planning to film the Cronin story in 2003 (which they didn't, anyway). While you may see similarities beyween the plots, The Scotsman does not make any such observation, therefore it cannot be used as a citation to support your hypothesis. Unless you can come up with a credible source - and fan forums absolutely do not "count" in that respect (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources) - that makes the same comparison, your addition is "original research" and simply cannot be included. As for your accusation of "ignorance" on my part, I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Civility, as well. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've looked over the history of this article, and it appears that this sentence has been part of the article for well over a year.  Additionally, it appears that Mr. Dalziel is the only person, aside from Mr. Cooper, who takes issue with the information it conveys.  Now why is that?  Why do the two of you assume that it is your prerogative to pick and choose what constitutes valid information when no one else is troubled by it?  And Mr. Cooper, why have you suddenly deleted the sentence after it was on the page for over a year with no complaints (aside from wording)?  Many would consider that an act of vandalism, despite what you may think and read in your rulebook.  I might add that there are literally thousands of pages on Wikipedia that contain sentences here and there (and entire paragraphs in certain cases) that are followed by [citation needed], and yet the sentence still stands.  Why don't you go about deleting all the other sentences on this site that don't pass your test, whatever that may be?  If you did so, there probably would be about half as much text remaining on the site, perhaps even less.  Why is this single sentence (what you call a "hypothesis" - give me a break!) so unacceptable to you?  Perhaps because it is the truth!  If you demand that rules be followed, at least be consistent about it.  I'm afraid that you are being exceptionally unfair, and to conclude that this is all merely my "opinion" is laughable.  When the title of the musical version of Billy Elliot's opening song is exactly the same as the film that the screenwriter admits has greatly influenced him - that is more than coincidental, by any standards.  Hall did not remake The Stars Look Down because he could not obtain the rights.  Common sense would dictate that there is a real link between the two works, and to deny that is ignorance - if you find that offensive, then you might consider your own actions, Mr. Cooper.  For you to accuse me of vandalism is truly sad when what you have done could actually be construed as a form of vandalism and is far ruder than anything I wrote.  You do not own this article or this website, and we all have rights.  Perhaps you should consider that fact for one moment.  I think the sentence should be reinstated with [citation needed] until I find the url, but it's doubtful you would permit such a thing, being the bullying watchdog that you are.  Remember that it's a two-way street. Purpleroyale (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the disputed information may have been on the page for some time carries little weight in itself. Most readers coming to a page for the first time are apt to take it at face value, rather than checking each and every reference for themselves to see that they confirms what they are supposed to. I first edited the page a single time in August 2007, which is when it will have gone into my watchlist. As such I will have been aware of the edits Ian made regarding the disputed information in January this year, when he presumably followed up the reference and found it wanting, but did not do so myself. A cursory glance at my history shows the number of pages I have been involved in editing. There are only so many hours in the day, and only so much time one can devote to any subject in particular.
It was only last month, when an attempt was made to shift the claim back into the lead, that I read the piece in The Scotsman. In my judgement, Ian was being too kind in even framing the contended connection as a "possibility" since there was no claim in The Scotsman of any influence - direct or indirect - of Cronin's work on Billy Elliot. That Hall was planning to adapt the Cronin's work after making Billy Elliot cannot be construed as some sort of retrospective acknowledgement without an explicit statement to that effect.
You seem to be having difficulty undertstanding what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for private individuals to advance their own pet theories, no matter how overwhelming they think the "evidence" supports them. Again, I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:No original research. This is quite different from a page having  tags, as they are dated and - if not addressed - the text they are applied to should be removed in due course, if corroborating evidence can't be found. This is a case where the existing source material has been repeatedly questioned, yet those advancing it - including (only?) yourself - have not been able to find anything more compelling to back it up. If you can find the interview you claim you have seen, or some reputable review or academic analysis of the film that makes this connection, then by all means it can be included, but until then it can't. Writers certainly are influenced by other writers, but unless they themselves or some other reputable source acknowledges it, we can't include them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I never edited this page before, despite what you may think, so I am not the only one espousing this "pet theory," as you so condescendingly label it, Mr. Cooper.  I'm defending it because whoever did write it was absolutely correct in their reasoning.  Do you honestly believe you know everything?  At least you admit that only two people, yourself included, have consistently diminished and blocked this information, which does enhance the article, whether you agree or not.  Open up your mind a bit.  I am a huge fan of Billy Elliot, the musical, Lee Hall, and A.J. Cronin, and I am proud that I have a comprehensive knowledge of these wonderful writers' works.  Judging from your obvious lack of appreciation for the valences of the works in question, I quite understand your reluctance to admit any connection. It's amusing that you assume that these claims have all been invented, but the interview with Hall does exist, and I shall seek it out in due time.  In the mean time, save your insults for someone else.  I know what Wikipedia is, but I fear that not all Wikipedians, such as yourself, bolster its value in being so discriminating, nitpicking, and hellbent on rules, unless it suits their own pet interests, of course. Purpleroyale (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Your "reasoning" - or that of anyone else who does not represent a viable source - doesn't enter into it, for all your patronising pomposity. Clearly - and despite repeated requests for you to do so - you have not read Wikipedia:No original research. Until you do, and understand its contents, there is no point in carrying on this "discussion." Nick Cooper (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice use of alliteration, you wascally wabbit! Purpleroyale (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy Elliot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

" British dance drama film" this is a WP:SEAOFBLUE.  Doubtful of the utility of linking British or dance for our readers.
"earning £73 million (US$109.3 million) on a £3 million budget (US$5 million) worldwide."  better as  "earning £73 million (US$109.3 million) worldwide on a £3 million budget (US$5 million)."
Why are budgets in the infobox initially in $ whereas the lead has it initially in £ and it's a British movie?
Figures are now given only in USD, as per their sources. I think we should just stick to USD, as providing the £ conversion now would just be an estimate. (I did take a look at 2015 British films and only USD is given.)
soup kitchen could be linked.
Don't link major geographical entities like London.
"Terraced homes used.." fragment, no full stop.  If you added "were" between homes and used, keep the full stop.
Ellipsis needs non-breaking spaces either side.
"The BBC also financed" why "also"?  And consider linking BBC.
" in total[5] before" nasty placement, move to after punctuation.
"On 3 June 1999..." whole para is unref.
I was unable to find a source to cite any of that, so I've added a new paragraph of details.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Lynemouth are overlinked.
"Billy Elliot advert" italics for title of movie.
Also would make that "advertisement" for encyclopedic tone.
Dancer in the Dark has a small "i" for In.
"on Blu-ray Disc on" remove "Disc".
"...on 10 January 2012." unref.
"Roger Ebert gave the..." who is he?
"the BBC gave" you linked BBC this time, but in italics now?
Recipients in the table, would expect them to sort by surname.
I've re-jiggled the recipients for each award, however, current structure is fine as Awards should be presented alphabetically (eg. Academy Awards first)
The names of the actors should sort by their surname.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Okay, but how can I do that without compromising the order of the Awards and their Categories? If I sort the entire table by surname, the awards will no longer be grouped and there would be a lot of repetition. Just Lizzy(talk) 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Using {{sortname}}? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I see thanks, I've added sortname to the actors and this now sorts it by surname. Just Lizzy(talk) 11:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"reviews[53] and ran " move that ref to end.
Ref titles shouldn't be using spaced hyphens, they should use spaced en-dashes.
No SHOUTING in ref titles.
Consistent formatting of things like Rotten Tomatoes (italics or no?)
Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, CinemaScore and BBC don't need italics, but all other media publications do. (example, see Mulholland Drive)
But your usage in the article and references is inconsistent.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I've resolved the one for BBC. I can't control the italics in the references, however. Hoping the rest is okay now. Just Lizzy(talk) 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure you can.  Either chose work (italics) or publisher (not italics).  But consistency is needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I've updated them again in article and refs, and should be consistent now. Just Lizzy(talk) 11:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
BAFTA awards refs need better titles.
That's enough for a first pass, so I'll put it on hold while we deal with these. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review! I've addressed all the above comments, and replied to some of them. I've also done a cleanup of the prose, thanks Just Lizzy(talk) 16:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lizzy150 responded to a couple of those. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Okeydokes, happy with this now meeting GA criteria.  Well done, promoting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)