Talk:Ruggles of Red Gap

message: This article is about the serial but has the format of a movie release. There should be a page for its origin, one page for the film adaption.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluido (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Page 

message: I have started to try and clean up some items with the film. Thank you, Beyond My Ken, for your efforts and I apologize for some of my errors. I do think a Production section and critical response section as well should be added with some comments and I will try to work on that as I have time. I also believe that the Academy award nomination should probably go into an awards section (perhaps include the trivia that the other 2 films Laughton did that year were also nominated and one of the 3 won). The trivia about the Gettysburg address not being in the novel I removed from plot and the citation as they are not appropriate (per MOS:FILM). I also fixed the cast list to reflect the roles listed in the film since that is the primary source. The infobox also needs some corrections. "Adapted by" is not screenplay and should not be added to that section. Therefore that credit should be removed from the infobox (it is not meant to be all-inclusive for all credits) or given a "story" credit and the current story credit for Wilson changed to a "based on" credit sinice the sources all seem to agree it was based on the novel. This based on should probably have some citation since the film does not explicitly indicate this. The film credits list: "Ruggles of Red Gap by Harry Leon Wilson" with "produced by" credit. Then the "directed by" credit. Following that is a screen with "Screen Play by Walter DeLeon and Harlan Thompson" and "Adapted by Humphrey Pearson". My recommendation is: Based the novel (with some citation), story by Pearson, and screenplay by DeLeon and Thompson. I can live with story by Wilson, and screenplay by DeLeon and Thompson with no Pearson in the infobox. The adapted by is in the lead section and more details could be added to Prod't section if a source is found of how it came about.AbramTerger (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm giving up.  You've taken full ownership of the article and have no interest in listening to anything that conflicts with your unbending views of how the article must be writen.  I have no interest in working with an editor who's so inflexible and committed to an overly strict and bureaucratic reading of the editing 'guidelines (not mandatory, friend).  So knock yourself out, someone else will correct your errors of fact sooner or later, and maybe they'll even put back in some of the interesting information that you insist cannot be used.  Too bad you're only interested in following rules and not in actually improving the article. BMK (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that you feel this way. My goal was to improve this article. As I watch films and check their wiki-page, I find so many with inaccurate credits (especially in the writing), so I have been trying to fix some of them. This page remains a challenge since it seemed to be hodge-podge of anything to do with Ruggles, instead of being the page for the film. I agree completely that there is a place for the interesting. But the origin of the novel belongs in the article of the novel, not the one about film. Notes about differences between the film and the novel don't belong in the plot, but either in prodn or as its own section. In either case, both would need citations, as this is meant to be an encylopedia. If interested in the source and details of the novel (which seems to be the points you disagree with), I would recommend creating that page. I have not read the novel, nor do I have any plans to, so I would not going to that page to edit it, if that makes a difference to you. Again, I thank you for your efforts here. They are appreciated.AbramTerger (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: There is 1 item in the popular culture section. I am not sure this is a significant contribution. I suggest that it be deleted but would like to know any other thoughts. If the consensus is to keep it, it does need a citation of the source and better yet how it is significant. Also I think some additional items should be included if we are going to keep thhis section.AbramTerger (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether an article on a popular film requires an "In popular culture" section, the film itself being part of the popular culture. I do not feel that a throwaway reference from a Looney Toons short is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion (it's trivial), and I think that allowing it opens the doors to cruft and more trivia. 73.180.197.201 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the section.AbramTerger (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture section