Talk:Witchfinder General (film)

message: Congratulations. This is a very good article on its way to becoming featured. A few  requests/suggestions:
* Is there an original film poster from the British release available for the infobox?
::I have been unable to locate a "regular" style UK poster.  There's a "horizontal" quad UK poster reproduced in a book I have on horror films, which I've seen copied a few times online.  I'll upload it and see how it looks in the infobox, but right now I suspect the DVD cover will look better.  If it doesn't work in the infobox I'll probably add it somewhere else in the article.--Hal Raglan 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added original British Quad poster to infobox.--Hal Raglan 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is no R1 DVD available, I cannot provide screengrabs taken from the film (my computer only plays R1s).  But I've seen a few murky screengrabs in various places online that might do the trick.--Hal Raglan 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added screenshot of Ian Ogilvy and Hilary Dwyer.--Hal Raglan 03:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are absolutely right that the intro should mention the screenplay is based on Bassett's novel.  I'll see what I can dig up on Bassett and the book.  Based on the very little I know at the moment, the articles will have to be extremely short stubs.--Hal Raglan 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created stubs for Bassett and the novel.--Hal Raglan 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be "UK".  I'll run thru the article and fix any "U.K." references.--Hal Raglan 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!--Hal Raglan 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for taking a look at the article.  I appreciate your suggestions!--Hal Raglan 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: For some mysterious reason, the References Section of this article became very strange after a recent, and extremely minor, edit I made.  In an attempt to correct the error, I reverted to the previous version of the article, but the References Section is still weird.  I can't figure out what the problem is.  For anybody with more technical wikipedia knowledge, please take a look and see if this can be easily corrected.  Thanks.Hal Raglan 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  A couple of hours later, the problem seems to have magically taken care of itself.Hal Raglan 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch!  I just tried the same minor change again (fixing "an historical" to "a historical" in two separate sections) and the References Section has turned weird once more.  Instead of 31 references, there are suddenly 52, although no additional references have been added.  In the introduction, what was once Reference 1 has become Reference 32, Reference 2 is Reference 33, and so forth.  Its very odd.  I'll take a look at it again tomorrow to see if it magically fixes itself again.Hal Raglan 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this seems to be a wikipedia-wide problem at this time.  I've added the ?action=purge remedy in the URL which seems to have fixed the problem.Hal Raglan 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An historical is correct, not a historical.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical is apparently an ambiguous case. "An" goes before pronounced vowels. Thus "a user" but "an umbrella". The h in historical is pronounced by many English speakers and thus takes "a", but others drop the "h", and so "an" not only appears but is correct for their use. So this is one of the few cases where you can't say one is definitively correct over the other because it changes based on the ear of the writer. To my ear "an historical" sounds utterly wrong but I'm sure if a grew up in Whitechapel I'd feel otherwise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's maybe an older use of the adjective. For instance An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is pretty old. There's a vaguely interesting discussion of it here, but doesn't really come to any conclusions, so either is fine I guess. Hey ho.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: This article needs at least a cast section. Cbrown1023 13:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally disagree.  Cast sections take up needed room.  This article is currently a Featured Article candidate.  If you look at the majority of film related Featured Articles, including the first three Halloween titles, Jaws, Night of the Living Dead, Summer of '42, Gremlins, and my own Tenebrae, you'll notice none of them have cast sections.  The infobox already contains brief major cast, as well as production crew, details.  If the reader wants more name-list info he/she can go to imdb.com.--Hal Raglan 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I broke down and added a Cast section.  I think it adds little, if anything, to the article but after looking at a few other film FAs, including Blade Runner, V for Vendetta, and Casablanca,  as well as the Star Wars films, I saw that they all contained Cast sections.--Hal Raglan 12:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section

message: The article consistently refers to the BBFC as the "British Board of Film Classification", however until 1984 it retained its original name of the "British Board of Film Censors". "Classification" is anachronistic with regard to this article, and I'll change the references to "Censors". -- Arwel (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BBFC

message: Is it really? 88.117.42.151 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am replying to a decade and a half old post, but this is a good question. I have seen the film and if it is described as horror, then numerous, for example, Spaghetti Westerns could be described as such. In fact, if this film was made in Italy/Spain, with time of action moved from Cromwell-era Britain to some (very fictional, like in all spaghetti westerns) version of Old West, with M. Hopkins being some corrupt local lawman or something similar, no-one would describe it as horror, even if the rest of it (including torture scenes) is left untouched. StjepanHR (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horror film? 

message: A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Witchfinder General (film). 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/20060109032120/http://villagevoice.com/film/0522,closeup,64493,20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0522,closeup,64493,20.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720175203/http://www.heavylyrics.com/lyrics/electric_wizard_lyrics_519/i,_the_witchfinder_lyrics_16768.html to http://www.heavylyrics.com/lyrics/electric_wizard_lyrics_519/i,_the_witchfinder_lyrics_16768.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: - I'm concerned that a number of the sources in the home video section are not RS.  Not sure that the following are RS:
* DVD Savant
* DVD Maniacs
* Classic Horror
* DVD Drive In
* Mondo Digital
As this in only a minor aspect of the article, I'm going to go ahead and mark as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020A, but leave this as a note there. Hog Farm  Talk 19:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: DVD Savant is part of DVD Talk, which I think makes it fine. Mondo Digital I think is fine as SPS (the author has written a bunch of books and been considered a source on DVD commentaries and the like.) Video Watchblog is red listed by the source finder, and Classic Horror and DVD Drive In seem pretty iffy as well. I'll see if I can find alternates for those sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020A]]