Talk:Hays Code

message: http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/27/t/000395.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People with cane's were gay? 

message: The article includes a shot from "Glorifying the American Girl", which I assume is because it is pre-Hays and the showgirl is topless, but the article doesn't specifically mention why this was included. Is there a specific reason this was chosen? I personally never heard of the film. Is it representative of what was happening at the time, which prompted the Code or was it somewhat unusual, but more and more frequently occuring in films? Please note, I am NOT objecting to the picture, just want it to be placed in context. Thanks Jimaginator 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glorifying the American Girl 

message: While the films in the tagged section are notably influenced by the Hays Code, it appears that they are written in an entirely unprofessional, POV, unencyclopedic manner, almost as if ranting. The passages are long analyses of trivial details that could perhaps still be referenced or included but in a different manner. Any help would be appreciated. 208.0.108.69 (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this deletion. While it is a rather large removal, I actually agree with IP editor that the excised text has really nothing to do with the Hays Code which in fact is not even mentioned. This is an article on an important subject, with much source material available, so there is no need for large chunks of extraneous essay type text. I realize there is a reflexive tendency to revert such wholesale deletions by IPs, but please discuss here before doing so. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Unencyclopedic Content 

message: There's vandalism throughout this Wikipedia page with the word penis.
Well played, vandal!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.230 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism with "penis" 

message: This is an example of an article where strict neutrality doesn't work well, because it prohibits discussing matters that need discussion (either within the article, or in referenced material). The "unfortunate" thing about the Production Code is that it forced film makers to show some degree of wit and creativity, rather than pandering to the lowest tastes of the audience. I am absolutely against censorship, but I also realize that censorship (or at least minimal levels of taste and discretion) can result in better motion pictures. This needs to be addressed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: [Added reflist-talk template ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: 25. Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy."
I have no idea what this means.
Xylon.doulas (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it means a bad guy or a bully.  RJ4 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text: According to the definition in MW (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heavy), it could mean a villain as in the suggestion above, but that doesn't make any sense in the context.  By the same source, it could also mean "a dignified or somber character", or "someone or something influential, serious, or important", which really does click.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.118.230 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: What does "heavy" mean in the in the codes context?

message: This quotebox might be useful, but I couldn't figure out where to put it so that didn't mess-up the page →
~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotebox (?) 

message: So this is what the line in the early, pre-Sylvester Tweety Bird cartoon is referring to. One cat forces the other to climb a ladder to grab the baby bird out of the nest. He gets to the top, and the one on the ground is yelling at him to "Get the bird, stupid! Give me the bird! Give...me...the...bird!" The other cat looks at the audience and quietly mutters "If the Hays Office would let me, I'd give 'im the boid alright!". So much for Looney Tunes being for children (it wasn't, of course). Does anyone think this would be useful in a "Popular culture section", or something?AnnaGoFast (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ah-ha! 

message: Is a picture of the famous "Thou Shalt Not" poster available?  That would be a good addition to this article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thou Shalt Not" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motion Picture Production Code. 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/20090618074036/http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/precode.jsp to http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/precode.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016123629/http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/ to http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/
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) 10:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there anything about the legacy of the code? I Think this would be super interesting and what its long term effects on American cinema were. dh74g3y (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. As the most common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Motion Picture Production Code →  – I think that Hays Code would be the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. I didn't realize that there was already a requested move discussion (from 2009) when I tried to boldly move this page, so I'm starting this discussion to see if consensus may have changed. I will say that even the lead of the article brings up that it's popularly known as the Hays Code. There's also plenty of reliable sources that describe it as the Hays Code  (specifically stating that it's "commonly known" as this), , etc. Clovermoss (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The document under discussion is officially called the Motion Picture Production Code. The article could be crosslisted, but calling it the Hays Code is misleading, as Hays only began the Production Code Administration and did not oversee the enforcement of the Code. That was done by Joseph Breen and Geoffrey Shurlock. 73.182.29.19 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but official names are not the same as the Wikipedia policy about common names. We have articles like J. K. Rowling instead of Joanne Rowling, etc. Wikipedia:Official names might be useful to read to understand this a bit more. I'm not disagreeing with you :) The article would still mention that it was also known as the Motion Picture Production Code. Clovermoss (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The article should be moved. Nobody refers to it as the "Motion Picture Production Code" and I didn't even know what the official name of the code was. Giving it a legalistic name simply softens it while the Hays Code is what everybody knows it by. Jon698 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text: * All you did was prove my point. Motion Picture Production Code brings up barely 60,000 results while Hays Code brings up over 150,000. According to Google Trends the Hays Code easily dwarfs Motion Picture Production Code. Jon698 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * Also some of the top results for  Motion Picture Production Code is stuff like What is the Hays Code — Hollywood Production Code Explained and an article which states "The Motion Picture Production Code—commonly known as the Hays Code". Jon698 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text: *: Google Trends is interesting. Is that the same thing as ngrams that I've seen in a few other recent move discussions or something else entirely? My instinct was to just link a bunch of sources that implied Hays Code was the common name, but using some form of statistics seems to make the argument about what exactly people say more strong. Clovermoss (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get the "ngrams" data please? The data presented so far presents evidenced support for the move. If the ngrams back that up I'll happily support the move. Betty Logan (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *  Meant to share this with you a few days ago. The Ngram viewer shows that Hays Code is twice as popular and overtook Motion Picture Production Code in 1996. Jon698 (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 July 2022