lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Replacements (film)

message: There needs to be a spoiler alert at the top of the page. (Dbcraft 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there doesn't, see WP:SPOILER, it is redundant to put a warning about plot details in the synopsis section. Phydend 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Alert? 

message: I see back in October an anonymous poster added information to each of the main player characters about what kind of Facemask they were wearing.  This seems pretty trivial, but I thought I would seek out other opinions before removing these annotations. SeaphotoTalk 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Working in the football equipment industry, I personally would find that interesting, but not particularly noteworthy for a wiki article. Morte42 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Facemask information

message: Shouldn't there be be a section, that tells us info about the movie, like where it was filmed?  I am not saying add a trivia section, but something that tell us about the movie.  I noticed as I watched the movie today, a potential goof.  I want to add said goof to IMDB.COM, but I did not kn ow where it was filmed, so I came here to seek said information, only to find it is not here. I feel this information would be encyclopedic. --Subman758 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A section called "production" could be started, if references can be found to document the information.SeaphotoTalk 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on Movie 

message: One of the games is won on a lucky two-point conversion, although the two-point conversiion did not exist in the NFL in 1987 (more like 1992). Also, the final big game against Dallas is played on Thanksgiving evening, but in Washington. In fact, Dallas plays every Thanksgiving, but at home (ditto for Detroit). --NameThatWorks (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fictional story, with no mention of the year being 1987. Anyway, I've removed all references to the movie being "loosely-based" on the 1987 Redskins as totally unsourced OR. Please don't re-add this info without citing reliable sources tat attest to this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Movie 
Talk:Under Suspicion (2000 film)

message: The plot synopsis reads like a review. It makes editorializing statements that seem to go beyond what Wikipedia accepts, and offers no meaningful citations to justify these claims.
: Agreed. Please remove review-like statements from the plot section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.169.221 (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the interpretive statements. Feel free to edit and make further improvements to the plot summary. - Kollision (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Plot synopsis 

message: Is Chantal the murderer? 50.1.100.38 (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Chantal kill the girls?
Talk:The Birdcage

message: "Katherine subsequently arrives and introduces herself as Mrs. Goldman. Kevin demands to know why there are two Mrs. Colemans;"
Shouldn't it say "Coleman" both times? King Rhyono (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coleman/Goldman? 

message: Did the movie help popularize hurricane parties from one its scenes?
391 loser (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hurricane party

message: The character's name is "Agador" and should be listed as such. "Spartacus" isn't his actual last name; it's a fake first name that Agador uses to pass himself off as a Greek butler. Armand only calls him "Agador Spartacus" in a hasty attempt to keep up the charade after accidentally calling Agador by his real first name:
ARMAND: Agador!
VAL: Spartacus!
ARMAND: Agador Spartacus!... He insists on being called by his full name. 2603:7000:9802:187B:80A1:A341:643B:AA4 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Agador Spartacus"
Talk:Get Shorty

message: This plot summary is factually inaccurate. Could someone please write a correct one?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.222.154.100 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Plot Summary? 

message: The last cast member listed in the credits is someone identified as Ernest 'Chili' Palmer, in the unnamed role of "Bones' Buddy #2".  IMDb says absolutely nothing about him except mentioning this role, and searching Wikipedia on Ernest Palmer results in two cinemetographers (one Hollywood, one British), and according to IMDb, neither of these fellows is the same as the Palmer in Get Shorty.  Now, I'm going to assume that since this guy just happened to have the last name Palmer, he obtained the nickname as a result of landing the small part in this movie.  But there's also the possibility that he happens to be a friend of Elmore Leonard, who used his name/nickname in the book, and pulled some strings to have him appear on camera for a moment.  Unfortunately, I have no idea how to find out any of this, since nothing I've found on IMDb or Wikipedia seems to support or deny either theory (or produce any other theories).  If someone with better detective skills than I could get to the bottom of this, it might make for an interesting addition to the article (or it might not be noteworthy at all, but at least we'd know). - Ugliness Man 10:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to IMDB , Ernest "Chili" Palmer is a friend of Leonard's, who named the character after him.  There's also a reference to Palmer during the bloopers, etc., in the closing credits of Me, Myself and Irene. - Walkiped 04:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Chili?
Talk:The Firm (1993 film)

message: Plot is identical to imdb summary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.99.18 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot IMDb 

message: Why were Sorvino and Viterelli not credited as the mafia guys?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumadoireacht (talk • contribs) 
Here's a possible citation for the Citation Missing, regarding Gene Hackman's decision to opt out of the ad credits. 
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-27/entertainment/ca-7504_1_gene-hackman
AmanAhuja (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncredited roles
Talk:Hallvard Graatop

message: This article is a fairy tale presented as facts. It's correct that "Hallvard Graatop" is mentioned in contemporary documents, but never with any reference to his background or family. The name is probably a "nom de guerre", and he must have covered his tracks deliberately. It seems that in this respect he was successful, as there's no record of his execution.
The theory that he came from Drangedal and is historically identifiable with Halvor Roaldstad is highly speculative. However, among common people with ancestry from Drangedal this story is considered gospel, and almost every hobby genealogist of that district will trace his roots back to this mythological figure. Actually, I consider it a stamp of quality and good taste not to include him among your ancestors.
I'm willing to revise the article, but I don't want to start an edit war. leifbk 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't spread fairy tales! 

message: The article says:
The Black Death, which wrought havoc throughout Europe during the 14th century, had decimated the ruling families of Scandinavia. King Olav of Denmark and Norway was the last native ruler in Scandinavia. When he died in 1387, his wife Margareta took over the rule of those two countries and then Sweden as well. 
Margareta wasnt his wife, but his mother. Olav was never married. His mother, Margareta went to be one of the most powerful women  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.212.58 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error
Talk:I Never Sang for My Father

message: Why is there not a page about the actuall story just the movie
If you do want to make a page about the book please talk about the psychological aspects of this story
iono were the play was performed on broadway any help? preicate it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.62.168 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons, who played siblings in I Never Sang For My Father, had played husband and wife three years earlier in Bonnie and Clyde.Maccb (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons
Talk:The Satan Bug

message: :Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
*—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: It may be noted that, in the film's credits, 16 cast members are listed. Below, for the record, is a reproduction of the form in which the cast is depicted in the opening credits:
THE MIRISCH CORPORATION PRESENTS
  THESATAN  BUG
STARRING GEORGE MAHARIS
RICHARD BASEHART
ANNE FRANCIS
AND DANA ANDREWS
WITH JOHN LARKIN (actor, born 1912), RICHARD BULL (actor), FRANK SUTTONED ASNER, SIMON OAKLAND, JOHN ANDERSON (actor)
JOHN CLARKE (actor), HARI RHODES, MARTIN BLAINE,HENRY BECKMAN, HARRY LAUTER, JAMES HONG
The on-screen closing credits, however, list Asner as "Edward Asner". Below is a reproduction of the form in which the cast is depicted at film's end:
GEORGE MAHARIS . . . . . . BARRETTRICHARD BASEHART . . . . . . HOFFMANANNE FRANCIS . . . . . . ANNDANA ANDREWS . . . . . . GENERALJOHN LARKIN (actor, born 1912) . . . . . . MICHAELSONRICHARD BULL (actor) . . . . . . CAVANAUGHFRANK SUTTON . . . . . . DONALDEDWARD ASNER . . . . . . VERETTI
SIMON OAKLAND . . . . . . TASSERLYJOHN ANDERSON (actor) . . . . . . REAGANJOHN CLARKE (actor) . . . . . . RASKINHARI RHODES . . . . . . JOHNSONMARTIN BLAINE . . . . . . MARTINHENRY BECKMAN . . . . . . BAXTERHARRY LAUTER . . . . . . FAKE SDI AGENTJAMES HONG . . . . . . YANG
                                                          Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed Asner is listed as "Ed Asner" in the opening credits and as "Edward Asner" in the closing credits
Talk:Crimes of the Future (1970 film)

message: There is no "secret police" in the film and nobody is incinerated. Neither is Tripod "urged" to mate with the girl. Rather, an institute with which his organization co-operates has obtained a girl for human experimentation to accelerate her puberty, where the plan is to test whether the procedure has been successful is by trying to infect her with Rogue's disease which only befalls post-pubescents. Tripod and his accomplices then try to find out by other means, via abducting her from the clinic and trying to impregnate her, in order to find out whether she is already post-pubescent. The first candidate to impregnate her eventually refuses, so next walks in Tripod to do it. But shortly before he does it, he finds her with the symptoms of Rogue's disease already, making the test of impregnating her unnecessary. --93.223.194.254 (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Secret Police"
Talk:Shivers (1975 film)

message: I was curious about the claim that David Cronenberg's theatrical debut film, "Shivers" (1975), was debated in the Canadian House of Commons. It is frequently repeated bit of film history trivia and I wanted to see what was actually said in the debates and protests by MPs, so I looked into the parliamentary debates archive from 1975 (30th Parliament, 1st Session), the year the film was released (https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/debates/30-1) and to my surprise I found no mention of the film in the records. I also looked forward in time as far as the records go for that session (12 Oct 1976) because it is possible that the film did not cause an immediate controversy, and instead, I found debates around another film "Sweet Movie" also funded by the Canadian Film Development Corporation and released earlier in 1975—a film that is mentioned by name in the several times between July and October of that year (https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_08/1). I even checked the index of topics; there, I found other films mentioned along with "Sweet Movie" but no mention of "Shivers" (https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_20/1). I even checked for Shivers' alternative titles, including the French one, but no luck. If it was mentioned in Parliamentary debate, it appears it was not central to the debate nor significant enough to record its mention (a bit hard to believe given the thoroughness of these record (eg. vol. 8 is 1000 pages). Furthermore, all other evidence I can find for this claim is mere hearsay, even the book cited for the claim in the Wiki article merely says that it was debated in Parliament, but does not give any dates or references itself (again, more mere hearsay). Does anyone know of any additional evidence to the contrary? If not, the article should be edited to reflect this widely misattributed piece of film history and trivia.
My hypothesis is that the memory of the debate around "Sweet Movie" was transferred to "Shivers" at some point, likely because it's not unbelievable that it would be debated and David Cronenberg's film is more famous. But, it was "Sweet Movie", not "Shivers", that was called an example of "insane, filthy productions" being funded by the Canadian taxpayer, and over which the CFDC was accused of "wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars" (p. 7721, HOC3001_8; cf pp. 7814, 7816, 8179, 8180, 8614).  RageandSteel (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the film actually debated on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons?
Talk:Rabid (1977 film)

message: The end of movie does not, as the article currently states, cause "the world to fall to apocalyptic biological chaos."  It is strongly implied that the infection is contained, given the lacadaisical way in which the garbagemen clean up the bodies.Monkey Bounce (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the movie

message: This article is often mistaken for it´s name, a lot of links to this article are totally wrong, because people think they could just link "rabid" in Wikipedia and get the disease. So please attach (film) to "Rabid" to avoid further problems. --93.135.45.182 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change article name to "[[Rabid (film)]]" 

message: In the plot summary I see nothing about the viral disease that can spread from wildlife to humans, and for which many countries have quarantine restrictions when pets are being brought in from abroad.? Is an orifice under the armpit a common symptom of rabies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The characters within the movie initially (erroneously) think it is a form of rabies, but it is not related at all. 156.63.69.85 (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  So has this movie anything to do with Rabies?
Talk:The Brood

message: I don't see what the big deal is.  It's just a horror movie.  Terrible things like this are suppost to happen.  I don't see why it is wrong for a woman to lick a baby, but when you have Fat Bastard shouting things like "I ate a baby!" it becomes permissible. --Bushido Hacks 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mmm, baby! The other white meat! 

message: Is that photo really appropriate here? It will ruin the entire movie for anyone who has never seen the movie and is planning on watching it, and the spoiler warning is not good enough considering the short length of this article. Anyone who arrives at this page will instantly see that image. If there are no objections, I am going to remove it. DragonRouge 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: In Cronenberg on Cronenberg (1992, 1993, Chris Rodley, Ed.), p. 85, Cronenberg says:
"I had a long and loving close-up of Samantha licking the feotus...when the censors, those animals, cut it out, the result was that a lot of people thought she was eating her baby. That's much worse than I was suggesting."
I don't know how to add citations; otherwise, I'd do it.  --Sladek (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Geoff B (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut Scene - citation 

message: BIG SPOILER here:
The film depicts a series of murders committed by what seems at first to be a group of children. These are in fact the "psychoplasmic" offspring of a mentally disturbed woman, whose husband fights for custody, and finally the life, of their daughter.
---- ---- ----
 this summary kills the movie; until the third quarter of the movie seems to be just one little person or little kid , and until almost the very end you don't know they are the offspring.
95.16.231.163 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary
Talk:Spider (2002 film)

message: The article as written had some subjective, POV problems which I removed, e.g. the film was "dumped" in only a few theaters and did not receive Oscar noms because of the distributor. In the first case, an arthouse distributor like Sony Pictures Classics (not to be confused with Sony Pictures) can't get a wide release for any film unless it becomes a hit and they can platform it. Second, considering Oscar noms are in themselves subjective and made by thousands of AMPAS voters, a lack of Oscar noms cannot be attributed with any certainty to a marketing campaign. That's just unproveable personal opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic work. JuanOso 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimmed back subjective analysis

message: While it is nice that this Wiki-Entry does not containt the main spoiler for the movie, it makes the movie sound pretty boring and un-twisty, which as you may know it isn't. Why not extend the part after the "killed mistress"?
Andy, 62.158.141.83 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Entry Spoiler Free 

message: This article is poorly written and developed, and is missing information on the film's release. This a sourced as well and needs article is also poorly sourced and needs citations added to its material. These issies need to be fixed and sections expanded in order for this article to meet wikipiedia's standards of a well developed article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and Expansion
Talk:List of mayors and lord mayors of Brisbane

message: The list of mayors of the Brisbane Muncipal Council has been compiled from a set of photos of aldermen and mayors held by the Brisbane City Council Archives (accessible online via the Brisbane City Council Library). Each photo has associated meta-data which includes the years that the man was mayor. This is the information I am using to compile the list but the photo collection seems incomplete as I cannot determine the mayor in some years. Unfortunately the photos themselves are listed as being the copyright of the Council so I cannot include them (pity!). Kerry (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone know when the system of appointing the Lord Mayor changed?  I know that currently it's by direct election (Campbell Newman is not a regular alderman and does not represent a ward), but it seems that as recently as the 1970s the mayor was an alderman, and was the leader of the majority party in the council? FiggyBee (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayoral Election 

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:List of mayors and lord mayors of Adelaide - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 14:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:George O. Gore II

message: Most of the article originally written by Hi5ve2005 was an outright copy of the text from here , which as it says on that page, is copyrighted.  Deleted the text (it's still in the history), provided the link to the original content.  If Hi5ve2005 can show that the text doesn't violate any copyright (i.e. he obtained permission to use it, etc), it can be restored back.  Also removed NPOV tag, since it was clearly no longer necessary. Ikh (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: He also played on jucie in 1988 2603:7080:8100:5C00:D853:D0C0:B700:BB9A (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jr from my wife and kids
Talk:Young Guns II

message: -The article needs a lot of work to become a better article.  I started it in the right direction today by adding a Info Box and a small plot description.  If photos and a more complete plot were added, as well as some more of the triva sourced, the article has the promise to move up through the rating scale quickly, but I'd go after the first Young Guns first.Ganfon 22:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several things have been added to clarify, including a more complete plot and Reception information.  Perhaps this should be considered B-Class now?  --CWSensation 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: I've begun a clean-up of the article.  There were a number of minor grammatical mistakes, as well as various sentences that just did not "flow" properly. GCD1 13:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: According to the article on White Sands National Monument, Young Guns II was filmed there. If this is true, this article should mention it.
ICE77 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming at White Sands National Monument
Talk:Young Guns (film)

message: Why does the link to Sharon Thomas's Wiki page automatically redirect to Dean Cain's page?  I'm not sure how this would be possible, nor do I have the first clue how to correct it.  Can anyone fill me in?Kp.murphy (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Sure What's Going On 

message: Shouldn't the differences between this movie and actual history be noted? After all, Doc was really an old man whose finger got shot off by the bounty hunter and Charlie Bowdre didn't die where the movie states he did. He did in the spot in young guns II where Doc was supposedly killed. Also, there was never a Chavez y Chavez involved with the regulators. He did exist, but it wasn't like they portrayed him in the movie.
To whoever wrote the comment above:
Doc was one of the oldest in the group but not that old of a man (around 30) and it was George Coe who got his finger shot off instead of Doc.  Doc was missing his two front teeth due to a gun battle during a card game. Chavez y Chavez was involved with the Lincoln County Regulators, he was at the five-day seige during the final days of the Lincoln County War.  
Rutke421 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a small section on the accuracy might be all right. The thing to remember is that there is a whole article on Billy the Kid and that is where a reader should go for the historical information. Eradicator 09:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real History
Talk:Affliction (1997 film)

message: What? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. heqs 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toothache? 

message: I've removed a  tag because in my opinion, although overlarge, the summary is not so overbloen or unreadable as to be useless.  It's quite well written, and at most might benefit from a little light pruning. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary
Talk:Sport in Brisbane

message: APC games are not contested by Super rugby sides. So it should not be as a Reds home game.
:They are still called the Queensland Reds in the APC, and are marketed as such by the QRU for the APC. It is a home game played by the Queensland Reds at Ballymore. Here is a link for how the QRU refer to them in the APC - http://www.redsrugby.com.au/reds/reds.rugby/page/40934/section/40198--dan, dan and dan 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When they are played in Brisbane (as this is "Sport in Brisbane") they will be included.--dan, dan and dan 07:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled