lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Clash of the Titans (1981 film)

message: In the movie Burgess Meredith clearly states, "Aphrodite's Temple." The Myth may be Athena's temple, but the movie uses Aphrodite's temple. As this is the article for the MOVIE and not the MYTH, the article should be corrected to reflect the movie. Several other liberties are taken, all in the name of cinema. As of Aug 2009, the movie is in rotation on AMC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aphrodite's Temple 

message: No, Raiders Of The Lost Ark Was Released either before that or after that! So that should be deleted!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for Raiders has the same release date, do you have a source which disputes that? That said, I don't think this info is necessarily appropriate in the lead of this article. — TAnthonyTalk 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Raiders Of The Lost Ark Was Released At The Same Time? 

message: Why is it called Clash of the Titans? Are there even any Titans in this movie?? The Kraken isn't even Greek mythology and Medusa is a Gorgan. Where are the afore.......mentioned Titans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.98.143 (talk • contribs)  00:57, April 3, 2010
:The name is obviously just chosen for impact rather than as an accurate depiction of the plot.  However, Medusa, in some versions of the myth, is the granddaughter of Tethys, a Titan, which at least gets her on the Titanic side of the family tree.  As for the Kraken, the name is certainly (and laughably) from the wrong mythology, but there was a sea monster that plays that role in the myth, represented in the sky as the constellation Cetus.  Bunnyhugger (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't even get it 

message: This section needs serious help.  It has no citations and some of what it says is controversial, or applies to some versions of the myths but not others.  It's really rough and possibly misleading as is. Bunnyhugger (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bunnyhugger, the section appears to be original research, so I've removed it. We need to cite reliable sources that can cover this film as it compares to mythology. This appears to be one possible source to use. (Search for "Clash of the Titans" within the pages.) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik, I think you're right to remove it.  I would have done so myself, but didn't feel confident since I'm not an expert on the topic.  Bunnyhugger (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have the right to be bold. :) Just need to follow the WP:BRD cycle if someone undoes your edit. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology section
Talk:Inchon (film)

message: "The movie had to go through a reshooting process after one of the film's stars, David Janssen, died during production."
Inaccurate. I haven't changed this.
From the sources I've checked (e.g., davidjanssen.net and IMDB Database), it's apparent that David Janssen didn't die during production of 'Inchon'. His scenes may have gotten killed off and the film may have committed suicide, but Mr. Janssen definitely lived through it. 
I would much prefer he had lived through 'Father Damien' and skipped 'Inchon!'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.92.12 (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming 
Talk:The Pirate (1948 film)

message: I am not the author of this piece, but I thought I might help by finding citations for some items. One glance at the material on TCM.com, and I realized that this article is a deft synthesis of information contained in all of the sources listed under External Links, and untangling them is beyond me.Merry medievalist (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demand for citations posted June 2021
Talk:Head Imam

message: Rashidun seems to already cover the same teritory.  If there are objectios I will redirect this there.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirecting is probably better on the basis that I find that the content here is merely a repeat of what's found over at Rashidun and probably Succession to Muhammad. 'Head Imam' is itself not really a significant term, I think the intended phrase might be Caliph. ITAQALLAH 01:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... just realised that was from 2008.. ITAQALLAH 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Brigadoon

message: I added an infobox for the 1954 film version in the "film" section of the article. If anyone feels it needs editing (adding/deleting info, moving to another section of the article, even deletion altogether) please feel free to do what you think is necessary. Thanks. Gujuguy 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox for film

message: This should be two separate articles, one for the stageplay, one for the film, which deserves to be fleshed out more. Chris (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but you did not transfer the links.  You need to click on the "What Links Here" button to the left of the article and go into all the links relevant to the film and change the musical's link to the film's link, OK?  I transferred some of them for you, but you need to go through and see which others should link to the film instead of the musical.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: split proposal

message: Now that the article has been separated from the film article, we need an image from the musical instead of the film poster that is now in the infobox.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JeanColumbia (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image-film poster

message: The Scots' last names in the synopsis follow the names used in the first English production, not the names as originally used on Broadway. Fiona and Jean's family is more properly MacLaren, not MacKeith, and Harry, the renegade, is more properly surnamed Beaton, not Ritchie. I noticed that at least one MacLaren remains (which is correct), but all the MacKeiths and Ritchies are incorrect. Someone should see to this, because not only are the names used in  West End productions of Brigadoon incorrect in a synopsis of what is after all a Broadway and not West End musical, but the names used on Broadway are still in use today, at least in America. Fred Lane (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Names In Synopsis

message: The title above says enough of my point.  :)  Hy-Brasil is a mythical place west of Ireland/Scotland that is enshrouded in mist except for one day every seven years.  Brigadoon is a mythical place west of Ireland/Scotland that is enshrouded in mist except for one day every 100 years.  Is Brigadoon not just an overt retelling of the Hy-Brasil myth?  Or was that just always an assumption of mine?  --Mrcolj (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of [[Brasil (mythical island)|Hy-Brasil]]?

message: Seems to be another Shangri-La knock-off.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shangri La
Talk:The Verdict

message: * This film appears to me as a real extraclass one. The camera frames are build upon a perspective, which is strange, unconventional.
Guess it might be the perspective of the victimezed young lady, the coma patient. This suggestion leads to angles which depend on the real experience of immobility and a threehundert year old wheight of unjustice. The laywers ability is settled in that weird angle system. Get right moving in stable opression! So Mr. Lumet found a real solution to improve a story at the democrat line, which means 
"-suppressors wrong!" No question, who this supressor is, the church, the famous doctor, the unrightfull judge, out of prejudices and so on... Film work as a medium for time axes in a special case, which is film class of it#s own. No conventional suspense, but increasing tension, by handling this unkwon perspective in the right way. Old man#s innovation works well! The alcohol problem doesn't act like a movens, it#s an actors studie to this theme. Clear and enlightning! Couragious either!--Danaide (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this is an innapropriate comment, as it relates to the movie and not to the article.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Lumet's special style!'' 

message: Bruce Willis is in fact an extra in the courtroom scene at the end, but he's not the man smiling after the verdict is read.PacificBoy 09:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected Bruce Willis info 

message: this is simply wrong. she is not in a persistent vegetative state. she is in fact comatose, as she is described in the next paragraph. the writer actually wikilinked persistent vegetative state, and one has only to mouse over the term to see that the description doesn't fit. the term persistent vegetative state is never mentioned in the movie. someone is adding details that aren't there.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Persistent vegetative state'
Talk:Mourning Becomes Electra

message: In the final sentence, 
While forgotten in the US, it was shown on British TV in the early 1960's and given such good reviews that was actually released in the movie theatres.
The object of the pronoun "it" has become unclear.  I assume it was intended to refer to the film version of Mourning Becomes Electra, but it sounds like it might refer to another film mentioned in passing.  I will leave it to someone knowledgeable on the subject to actually fix it. 
72.188.143.58 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit unclear 

message: the text mentions that a full performance of the cycle is extraordinarily lengthy for a drama. I'd be interested in specifics. How long do full productions run?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.249.207.195 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  lengthy
Talk:Detective Story (1951 film)

message: This film was not only Grant's cinematic debut, but also her last film role until the late 1960s; she was blacklisted shortly this film appeared.Maccb (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lee Grant

message: The referance to Gregg Toland is misleading.  Toland did not work on this film and had been dead three years by the time it was shot. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast correction

message: This summary says that Mary confessed to having an abortion.  That may have been from the stage play by Kingsley.  In this movie, she says she gave birth to an illegitimate baby and Kirk Douglas then goes on about how he cannot get the "filthy" image of her giving birth out of his mind -- this was so incongruous that I suspected this plot detail had been laundered for the movie version (as with "The Children's Hour") and apparently my suspicions were correct.  I might add that, while some critics praised the attentiveness to detail, looking at the movie now it is painfully obvious that big city police stations operate very differently. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: The article states: "A distressed Brody then releases Arthur while admonishing him "not to make a monkey out of me." Arthur and Susan (who earlier professed her love for him) leave as Monahan calls for a priest and Joe calls his newspaper to inform them of McLeod's death."  Wrong.  Watch the movie again.  Lt. Monahan has already called the rectory --St Vincent's-- for a priest.  His final call is to "downtown" to apprise the Police Commissioner and District Attorney that a police officer was killed in the line of duty.User:JCHeverly 15:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , you can be bold and correct the article. This is not a developed article, so I doubt the plot summary has been well-vetted for accuracy. Go ahead and correct any details that are amiss. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Information.
Talk:Lust for Life (1956 film)

message: Van Gogh was a painter, period. Both :Category:Films about Vincent van Gogh and :Category:Biographical films about painters are more precise than :Category:Biographical films about artists, which includes riffraff like sculptors, etc., so the artists category is third best. And the first category is a subset of the second, so WP:DIFFUSE is applicable. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: First sentence of Vincent van Gogh: "Vincent Willem van Gogh ... was a Dutch post-impressionist painter". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh! That says: Post-Impressionist Painter, not painter.........  this is the definition of the word painter -  1. a painter is an artist or 2. a painter is someone who paints walls!!!!!!!!!........as I said the word artist is far more appropriate...Modernist (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category dispute
Talk:Lonely Are the Brave

message: I don't understand what we are supposed to conclude from the Ben Bradlee quote: "Jackie read off the list of what was available, and the President selected the one [film] we had all unanimously voted against, a brutal, sadistic little Western called Lonely Are the Brave."
Are we to conclude that they all thought the movie was brutal and sadistic prior to seeing it and were then won over, or did they come away revolted by the film after seeing it? Can we get some clarity on this? 
Isoruku (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the source, but I presume that what happened was as described. That is, nobody thought the film was any good but Kennedy selected it. It indicates in an offhand way that the film had a reputation for being "brutal and sadistic." However, I agree that it is not optimal and doesn't really add very much to the article at all. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Bradlee quote
Talk:The Villain (1979 film)

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 
Talk:Saturn 3

message: In episode The Lizard-Spock Expansion (s02e08) of The Big Bang Theory Sheldon andRajesh have to decide to watch Saturn 3 or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.  As a compromise Leonard suggeste Babylon 5. (Trivia or Cultural Reference section?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.1.221 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant, shouldn't be referred to at all. 88.109.26.20 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Bang Theory 

message: There are some grammatical errors in the list, but the main problem is that it lists a lot of different scenes in a paragraph (should probably be fixed into something where each example can be separate as well), and some of them would be very difficult and/or impossible to find using the plot description. The main example that comes to mind is the one about an extended sequence of Adam walking down the corridor.
Aside from that, there is also the problem of the next bullet point, which seems very similar. It claims that the same broadcast added "musical cues", but then calls them "scenes" in the next sentence. Not sure if both "sections" should be combined.
Sorry if the description of the issues with the extra scenes was vague, but there are a lot of them, and I think a lot of them have the same general issues (not clear what the scenes are about and where they are in the movie's plot)  I described.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandor1 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "things added to the 1984 NBC broadcast" list 
Category talk:Toll bridges in New York City

message: I think this is a redundant category that needs to be removed.  The bridges should be deonted as toll bridges in some other location. Cacophony 21:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This category specifically, or all "Toll bridges" categories?  Why? --Samuel Wantman 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I swear that I already replied here.  Anyways, it is too bad that the category page cant contain a T next to bridges that are toll bridges.  With an article like Outerbridge Crossing there can be: cat:bridges in Ny, bridges in NJ, bridges in NYC, toll bridges in NY, toll bridges in NJ, toll bridges in NYC.  That seems excessive to me.  Cacophony 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that the entire category scheme of Toll bridges could be replaced by a list.  I think you need to decide on something with SPUI, since he created the Toll bridge hierarchy and has strong opinions about it.  I'll agree to anything that has the complete list of the Bridges in New York City in one category.  Another way to do this is to keep them separate (as they were yesterday) and put links from each category to the missing bridges.  So in Bridges in NYC, there would be "See also the articles on the following toll bridges (with a list)" and in Toll bridges in NYC, "See also the articles on the following free bridges (with a list)". -- Samuel Wantman 06:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One idea is to replace this with a list on the category:bridges in NYC page.  Then redirect List of toll bridges in New York City to that section.  Cacophony 08:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:A Patch of Blue

message: why is the movie called, 'a patch of blue'? it's not explained or referred to in the script.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.5.211 (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  misc 

message: I have just corrected a problem that occurred throughout the article.  
The grandfather's name is not Ole Pa.   He is refered to as Ol' Pa, with Ol' being the abbreviated form of "old'.  They are calling him "Old Pa" minus the "d". See   and  and  and  
Amandajm (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding 

message: We are currently working on THE TRANSLATION into Spanish of this article. Translation work will be ready by the end of May 2013. For more information see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Universitat_Jaume_I_-_E-translating PLEASE, DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO SO, PLEASE INFORM US AT Mcptrad --Mcptrad (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation Class Project

message: Lead actor is Harry Belafonte not Sidney Portier as in the description 2603:8001:9E01:BA05:C32:D26D:7C3B:4F3 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All reliable sources, including the credits, say it's Sidney Portier. DonQuixote (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Belafonte not Sidney Portier 

message: I just watched it, and maybe I missed it, but how was it concluded that Rose-Ann and Sadie were planning to turn Selina into a prostitute?  It was clear they were planning to have a house of ill repute, but I don't think that meant pimping out Selina unless I didn't catch it. 
And while I'm at it, wasn't just the object that Rose-Ann threw at here enough to blind her?  I didn't think there was a chemical in there.
JAlietr (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning Selina into a Prostitute?
Talk:The Long Ships (film)

message: Can someone with appropriate knowledge fix the budget in the info box? "129,00" doesn't say much, and regardless of currency, would be a ridiculously low budget for a film. Oldiesmann (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the figures show in the box now are correct, doesn't this film qualify as a box office bomb?  Looks like between its U.K. and U.S. grosses, it recouped about one-fifth of what it cost to produce.  2600:1004:B10D:9D01:4449:3C73:D4DF:1F13 (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget
Talk:The Bedford Incident

message: Breaking out the article USS Bedford (DLG-113) from this main article makes no sense. There is not enough information to take this article beyond a stub and it could easily and more relevently be incorporated in the main article. Nv8200p talk 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[USS Bedford (DLG-113)]]

message: The film is correctly categorized as being in black-and-white (twice), but that fact is not mentioned in either the lede or infobox. Should be both I think. --73.114.25.111 (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black-and-White 

message: It is the Farragut-class destroyer that has the forward-sloping bridge windows, not the HMS Troubridge. The links in the article lead to articles with photos of the two destroyer types demonstrating this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsulek (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming 

message: Doesn't the book deserve it's own separate page? Wfoj3 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book
Talk:A Piece of the Action (Star Trek: The Original Series)

message: There was a comic sequel to this episode where Picard and the Enterprise-E visited the planet, with the premise being that the Iotians had turned their world into a gang-based civilization identical to Kirk's Federation. Eventually one faction takes over the Enterprise only to be defeated by Data and a Kirk hologram.
Not sure if I could find a source for this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.86.11 (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I haven't seen this episode in a while but isn't isn't the division of proceeds known as the Federation's "cut" ?  Britmax (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Piece of the action v cut

message: In the episode there is a poster of Okmyx on the wall.  The name on the poster doesn't say Oxmyx, it says Okmyx.  Despite the assumed spelling of the name due to pronunciation, shouldn't the version seen printed in the episode be used?It seems to me that the fact that it appeared on screen makes it the official spelling.
BAPACop (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxymx vs. Okmyx 

message: This episode was a C- .  The ending hardly resolves the non interference issue and if anything made it worse.  So not Trek! 2600:1700:98D8:1010:7829:EC79:C606:DBA1 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Interference