Talk:The Devil Wears Prada (film)

message: *I've been wondering if the article should indicate the several clothing lines featured in the film.
:It does now that the DVD's out and we can hear Patricia Field talk about it on the commentary track. Daniel Case 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at the end of that paragraph. Daniel Case 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but one or two more should be included. Crimson-Radar 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a second ref for both allegations. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's better. Thanks! Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The result of all sorts of well-meaning anons after the film came out. Some really aren't, IMO, worth noting; others could be combined. I'll have to take a look at it this weekend and see what I can do, now that the film is in that distribution interstice between theatrical and DVD release. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a lot of it is relatively trivial and the section could use some heavy trimming. Personally, the most notable differences between the film and novel should be kept. Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That was per the project guidelines when I started the page. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Crimson-Radar 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I totally agree ... and I was the one who started it. As I've said above, I'll have to sit down and clear it out soon, given that we're coming up on the US DVD release. Daniel Case 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, the book does specify Horace Mann at one point. But whither the film? The twins are used so little. Daniel Case 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found proof of both, with cites. Daniel Case 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, this is confirmed in one of the deleted scenes. Article edited to reflect this. Daniel Case 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A few things...

message: OK, I finally did this. The biggest thing that saved space was just generally summing up the differences in the endings. It's not necessary to say that Nigel doesn't get the job he was looking for with James Holt at the end of the novel because not only does James Holt not exist in the book, the book's Nigel is very different ... both points that have already been made. (Oh, wait, I forgot to add that Holt was created for the film). I also consolidated many of the points about the same characters. I don't know if it's shorter but it's better organized, that's for sure. Daniel Case 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences section cleanup

message: Two of the differences concerning the twins are hereby being parked over here:
In the novel, the twins attend the Horace Mann School in The Bronx, New York, while in the movie, they attend The Dalton School in New York, New York.
I do not recall either the film or the novel explicitly identifying their school. I'll watch the DVD closely and reread the book, but I always got the impression from the latter that we're meant to think they go to the Lycée Français.
:OK, the book does specify Horace Mann at one point. But whither the film? The twins are used so little. Daniel Case 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found proof of both, with cites. Daniel Case 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, this is confirmed in one of the deleted scenes. Article edited to reflect this. Daniel Case 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need sources on these

message: Just a heads-up to editors about the DVD release of the film slated for this Tuesday. We can expect a spike in well-meaning anon edits and, perhaps, vandalism (at least it'll be a relief from the cavalcade of complaints that we should have an article about the eponymous band). However, based on its reported extras, there should be a lot of useful information for the article in the featurettes. I hope I will be able to rent it on the day it comes out or shortly thereafter; however I'm not sure I'll be able to. If anyone does and wants to add stuff, remember to cite it (Have we come up with a format for DVD audio commentary citations yet? Has the MLA? APA? Harvard? Anyone? Bueller?). Daniel Case 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending DVD release 

message: Why is this not featured? I mean this page is about 10x the length of any other movie article on Wikipedia! -24.92.43.153 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't started the process yet, that's why. I am expecting to start at WP:FILMS's peer review next week. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not featured?

message: So far I've found the two peer reviewers to have made helpful comments, and I have or will implement their suggestions. However, the article's overall length is still a problem that I don't see anything above solving. Merging sections only makes the TOC smaller; it won't do much to tighten up the article as a whole.
The real problem re the article's length is the production section, which runs for almost 3,500 words, roughly 27% of a (currently) 13,000-word article. During my initial work on this, I saw how much the section was growing and pondered splitting it off into a separate Production history of The Devil Wears Prada article. I didn't because it seemed that there was no other article that did this, and I decided I'd wait to see what people thought in peer review or elsewhere.
It seems there is no objection to the content of the section, save the storyboards bit being more trivial than David Frankel presents it as being. But it is undeniably the python bump in the article.
So, I am proposing splitting it off into a daughter article and leaving behind about four or five grafs and a pic or two summing up. I bet we could make up a lot of length that way and get more room to maneuver with the other sections. If it were half its length, and the "differences" section under plot prosified as I have considered on peer review, I bet we could get this under 50K.
Now I'm still aware that there are no separate production history articles for other films ... yet. But I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea. Certainly the Star Wars movies could have even more written about their production histories than currently are; I see other films in the future needing one as I'm sure this issue will come up again. Older films like Citizen Kane and Casablanca have also had enough written about their production to sustain separate articles. We would need an appropriate category, of course ... something like :Category:Production histories of films would probably meet the category naming convention standards.
Any thoughts on this? I'm going to put this split proposal into the article and wait a few days. Daniel Case 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm not a frequent editor of this page, but I do admire its thoroughness and would definitely put a vote in for splitting off this section, and would consider helping split off more sections like it in other film articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate production history article? 

message: "Another newspaper fashion writer, Hadley Freeman of The Guardian, likewise complained the film was awash in the sexism and clichés that, to her, beset movies about fashion in general. She did not, however, directly dispute the authenticity of any aspect of the film." The second sentence strikes me as a touch of analysis. It's not really wikipedia's job to analyze what the author didn't say; it's simply to state what s/he did. Just IMO. Chevinki 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, good call. Gives me more justification for cutting. Daniel Case 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: Not quite sure, but wouldn't it be more convenient having Cast after Plot? The information after Plot (Production) uses the names of the actor a lot, and a normal person without general knowledge of the actors may find it a tad bit confusing. Just IMO :] Lenners 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's per project guidelines and MoS. See WP:MOSFILMS. Daniel Case 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: :Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.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 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They used to be on YouTube but not anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.jpg

message: I am hoping to split the production history off before it is reviewed ... otherwise it is too long. Also expect to copyedit extensively. Feel free to put on hold if not done when you get to reviewing it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes to GA reviewer 

message: I have delisted this article from WP:GA due to the fact that a proper review was not conducted. The article was simply "passed" by Limetolime and then he deleted his useless comments, which is not an acceptable GA review. The article is now a GA nominee again. When reviewing, please follow the Good Article criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisted, referred back to GAN

message: User:Daniel Case if you feel that reverting good faith edits is best for the article, please discuss the changes on the talk page.  You have every right to disagree with my edits; however, you do not have a right to threaten me on my talk page because you do not like the edits.  I find it especially troubling that you said that you would block me if I made any more edits you did not agree with.  Please see WP:Administrators  It is a clear violation of policy for you to use your administrator privileges (ie: blocking) because another user edited your version of the article.  Here is the policy:  "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."  Sorry, but you hardly qualify as a reasonably neutral party as you have been editing this article at least since December, 2006.  If you make any further threats, I will file a grievance against you as you are clearly abusing the administrator tools.  Again, I am more than prepared to discuss the content of the article on this page.  24.128.247.159 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps I should have stated more clearly that I would have taken it to WP:ANEW just to be on the safe side. I could say more, but I accept your more recent wording, and we shall leave it at that. But do try to play well with others in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated Reverts of Good Faith Edits

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Devil Wears Prada (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629055703/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2006/06/30/2006-06-30_shes_devilicious_streep_a_delight_as_inf.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2006/06/30/2006-06-30_shes_devilicious_streep_a_delight_as_inf.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The Devil Wears Prada (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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Ffashion%2F2006%2F09%2F06%2Fefpatricia06.xml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.com/who/magazine/article/0%2C19636%2C7401070219-1583696%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/reviews/article1808686.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612165922/http://nbrmp.org/awards/ to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514022142/http://www.hfpa.org/nominations/index.html to http://www.hfpa.org/nominations/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108052342/http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=1516 to http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=1516
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bafta.org/site/page287.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) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Devil Wears Prada (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/20061125203351/http://www.oficinadeestilo.com.br/blog/wp-content/office.jpg to http://www.oficinadeestilo.com.br/blog/wp-content/office.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907180031/http://www.sagawards.org/PR_070104 to http://www.sagawards.org/PR_070104
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212143553/http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews8/devilwearspradadvd.html to http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews8/devilwearspradadvd.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118071708/http://richsommer.vox.com/library/post/fun.html to http://richsommer.vox.com/library/post/fun.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) 04:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The plot summary says "Andy breaks the news to a hospitalized Emily, who is still unconscious from the incident."  This is inaccurate, she is not unconscious (she actually argues with Andy).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:680:5F0:4C24:D93B:133E:D071 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that might be some confusion of the movie plot and the book (where it's Lily, who has a much bigger role in the book as Andy's moral foil, lying comatose in a Manhattan hospital while she's in Paris and her friends basically tell her, choose your job or your friends). Will fix. Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Plot Summary 

message: Is there any available source for Ivanka Trump having a cameo in the movie as listed in the article? I'm almost positive this is false information, because the movie isn't listed on her IMDB page, and it on hers. I've tried to do various searches to find information/articles on this (as there are a number of articles discussing other cameos like Gisele's), and there are a number of sites that list her as having a cameo, but there isn't any further information anywhere as far as I can tell and I'm wondering if this is bad information that is getting cross-posted on various sites because it was listed here or on one of them. 
She's listed as having a cameo up further back than the last 500 edits, so I feel like someone else should have seen this by now, so I'm extremely confused as to if this is accurate information or just a malicious edit someone added tongue-in-cheek with her father being... the president... and all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1400:3AA5:34AA:A9DC:4F29:F9B7 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivanka Trump 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andrea Sachs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  feminist (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Andrea Sachs" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The Liz Jones article doesn't actually claim any link to the film. It's just her talking about the film. This is just a WP:DAILYMAIL review - which as a deprecated source would be prima facie WP:UNDUE - and doesn't really warrant mention on its own merits. It's just Jones saying "gosh, it was a lot like this!" I think this source should go. I see someone else wanted to remove it recently too.
, you talked about getting the article to FA. In this case, this is a deprecated source that isn't WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSPS or anything like that. Deprecated sources without much better justification than this really aren't going to help at FA. Does this review do sufficient load-bearing work? I don't think it does - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming over here and weighing in ... you know I always value your opinion.I reread it and I think you are right ... I was going to say that Jones' perspective was valuable as she was the only person who'd worked as a fashion magazine editor, but then I saw that it wasn't, that we have the editor of Marie Claire speaking to this as well, and frankly her comments are more on point to the film, since they talk about the sort of women who work at fashion magazines, and the relationship between editor and assistant, which is what the film is more accurately about.I think I will move Jones' comments to the stand-alone article we have now on Miranda Priestly, since they'd be more relevant there. Or at least I will be soon when my work for the census is over.I still have hopes of getting it to FA, but as with so many other things this year the pandemic got in the way and my life off-wiki has not returned to a sufficient level of normal yet. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liz Jones isn't actually linked to the film 

message: — Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 1 pm

message: adding themes to film. Ssonalis (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes