lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Winslow Boy

message: There is an oblique reference to the play in an Episode of BBC television's Blackadder Goes Forth. General Melchett shuffles through some paperwork, looking for an item to hand to Captain Blackadder, pauses for a moment, then mutters "no, that's not it... That's a postal order for 10 shillings, for my nephew". The discrepancy in the amount (five shillings in the play, says the main article) makes for an interesting study in the tricks your  memory plays on you (hence search engine input:- 10 shilling note not linking to Winslow Boy). I dare say quizmasters could have fun with this one. EatYerGreens (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: Article says a legal precedent was set.  The article would benefit (as might I) were this to be explained or, better, if this is documented at WP, were a link to this provided.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal precedent 

message: In MAGNET #173 AND #174 (June 3 and 10, 1911), school boy (Greyfriars boarding school, a college) Bob Cherry is accused of stealing a ten shilling postal order and cashing it, backed up by the evidence of a short sighted post mistress. He is expelled but his father, Major Cherry vows to fight with lawyers and go to the House of Lords.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 1911

message: That last couplet of dialogue, delightful as it is in the 1999 movie, is not in the play, which is available in ebook format at the Wayback Machine.--Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Last sentence in the section on the plot

message: In the "Differences between reality and fiction" section it states "In the play, it was Ronnie's father who first believed in his innocence; in fact, it was his older brother, Martin, who persuaded their father", However in the George Archer-Shee article it says when his father received the letter stating that George (the basis for Ronnie Winslow) was being expelled for theft he 'instantly responded that "Nothing will make me believe the boy guilty of this charge, which shall be sifted by independent experts"'. These two claims would seem to contradict each other. However as neither cites a source it is difficult to be certain which is correct. Dunarc (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with George Archer-Shee article on claim about father
Talk:Scouting in Turkmenistan

message: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/MOS#Capitalization, I've undone the last edit.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/MOS#Capitalization
Talk:Homicide (1991 film)

message: Was GROFAZ really used in Germany or is it an invention for this film?
:Yeah.  de:GröFaZ. Bartleby (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GROFAZ 

message: The description of the ending in the plot summary is not how I interpreted the film but I wondered how other people saw it. I've seen the movie twice and I took it both times to be a film about radicalization. Bobby Gold is groomed into a cause by a radical group and by the end of the movie, he is carrying out terrorist acts, he had gotten his partner killed and ended his police career - and the final, brutal irony is that the neo-Nazis whose office he blew up had nothing to do with the old woman's murder and he has essentially become somebody just like them. I've read reviews that interpret the movie differently. Roger Ebert saw it more positively, that it was about a man who doesn't fit in discovering his Jewishness. I think that is partly true but in the sense that terrorist groups like jihadists often recruit nihilists to be their foot soldiers, giving them something to believe in and then when they are true believers, giving them a suicide vest. That's the story I felt Mamet was telling both times, in viewings 30 years apart. Any thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:A830:9401:C5D6:2F9:ECAF:E306 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie isn't about radicalization. (I happened to watch it last night.) If it were about radicalization the entire case hunting down Rudolph would be superfluous. The movie is about Gold discovering himself and making choices. The two cases are metaphors for the choices Gold needs to make to move forward with his life. He isn't groomed, he chooses to join the zionist organization because he wants to. The neo-nazi hideout is abhorrent to him as soon as he sees it. He blows it up because he sees it as wrong, even though that goes against his being a cop and upholding the law. (BTW the plot description is wrong when it says that he used a nazi bomb. The bomb was brought by the woman and he takes it from her when he goes into the shop. It looks like a laptop when he takes it from her and later when he sets it off.) I guess the list is a line that he won't cross. In the end both cases are solved although there's collateral damage and Gold comes out changed. Gold is not a terrorist at the end of the movie. CurlyMoeLarry (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ending
Talk:About Last Night (1986 film)

message: I think this article should be moved from About Last Night (film) to About Last Night..., since the film's correct title is with the ellipsis. Anthony Appleyard objected to my previous move request under Uncontroversial proposals saying "But it is guaranteeable that many people looking for this page will leave the dots off. To complicate matters, page About Last Night without the dots is about a music EP record." However, I feel that this move to the film's correct title would have no influence on that. People looking for this page the way Anthony Appleyard described will end up at the article about the EP either way, whether this article is under About Last Night (film) or About Last Night.... This move will not affect that. We might additionally consider moving About Last Night to About Last Night (EP) and turning the former into a disambiguation page, but that's a different matter. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I don't have any sense of the relative importance of the two. But assuming they're roughly equal, I think the suggestion that people will leave the ellipsis out is likely right, so About Last Night should probably be a disambiguation page. It makes sense to make the title of this article as accurate as possible, with ellipsis. But is ellipsis a distinct character from three periods? If so, people might not know which to type to link directly to the page. This is the only possible objection I can see to the move. If the characters are separate, I think somebody who is experienced with Wikipedia practice in the area of easily confused characters. If ellipsis=three periods, I support the move fully. Joeldl 07:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move I suggested is to the title with three dots, but you're right About Last Night… (with the elipsis as one character) should redirect there, too. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This article contains incorrect information.  The two main characters names were not "Billy" and "Monique" in the movie version of this film but rather "Danny" and "Debbie".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.100.82 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information

message: Can someone please make a longer plot for about last night.....1986?? i mean it was box office success but the plots so short  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hergentine (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: *About 'About Last Night...,' the Chicago version at Chicago Tribune
*How ‘Sexual Perversity’ turned into ‘About Last Night ...’ at Chicago Sun-Times
References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to use
Talk:Plast

message: * Ukrainian Plast → Plast — most common usage of the term, matches with the original Ukrainian article, and the current Plast disambig page has been renamed as a disambig page. — Chris 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Scout should always be capitalized in this sense in English, and postal abbreviations for states need to be spelled out. Chris 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: attention tag
Talk:Simone (2002 film)

message: No references to the story of Pygmalion?  Or would it have to be directly cited? -96.2.208.95 (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pygmalion? 

message: * How an idol can be created, is been shown in this film. A virtuell projection field of male and  female perfection dreams is figured out. So just pretenders try to betray themselves and the audiances? Or is it the other way around, there isn't anybody human, who likes to be that perfect. Dreams on celloloid are selfreferential build up  and the director Vic
acts himself on wiip. If fiction could mean a directors fancy and an actors either will compromise in action, it's a real ironic film about selffulling directors. -and they want to be betrayed!--88.77.194.150 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real 

message: I'm suspicious about the validity of the following statement, and have marked it as 'citation needed' for now:
:"The movie is inspired by Ray Kurzweil, specifically Kurzweil's 2001 TED Conference presentation of his female alter ego, Ramona. The scene in which Viktor performs a concert is modeled very closely with Kurzweil's Ramona presentation."
The TED talk was in Feb 2001 (as far as I can determine - Ramona:Q&A).  The movie was released in August 2002.  That means the movie was conceived, written, green-lit, funded, produced, filmed, post-produced and distributed in just 18 months.  That seems a little hard to believe.  Typically scripts are developed for years before being produced.
Apart from IMDB, I've found one marginally-authoritative source for this claim here (The Singularity Is Near (page 7)) - a promotional document for Kurweil's book.  However he doesn't mention any connection in his 2002 review of Simone ().  Presumably if Niccol had been inspired by Kurweil, there is a strong chance that he would have at least contacted Kurzweil while the movie was in production.
It might be that Kurweil's TED presentation inspired the 'concert' scene of the movie, but it seems unlikely that it inspired the whole movie. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspired by Kurzweil
Talk:The Recruit (film)

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Recruit →  – OK, I'm going to go ahead and argue that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title, or at least that the 2003 film (which was hardly any kind of "blockbuster") doesn't qualify as enough of the primary topic here (outside of the occasional infrequent page view spike), especially in light of the new 2022 TV series. Here are: page views for the articles with this title over the last year. There are now two TV series with this title, plus the film, and a novel article – My recommendation is that all of these articles should all be parenthetically disambiguated, including the 2003 film article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 December 2022 

message: Apokrif (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the wikification of "nonlinear cryptography" correct?
Talk:Two for the Money (2005 film)

message: Please DELETE this article.  There is a crooked individual making money by creating a completely false connection between himself and the character Brandon Lang.  Brandon Lang is a characters name and someone is fraudently assuming the role to cheat people.  Please DELETE the connection between "Brandon Lang" and this movie.  People are falling victim to FRAUD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.10.98 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

message: I cut this:
Al Pacino's characters phrase about his father yelling at him so much, was taken from the character Sid Snot, played by Kenny Everett. The character Sid Snot used to say, "My father used to yell at me so much when I  was a kid, I used to think my name was Shaddup". Shaddup of course means "shut up", If you say it quickly without a pause.
For one thing, this is a variation on many similiar jokes, most of which come from Borscht Belt comedians who probably told the joke 20 years before Mr Everett WAS EVEN BORN. If it was meant as an homage to Everett's use of the joke, a citation is needed (ie,  tag).  RoyBatty42 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut trivia

message: Is there a source for "The film was based on Brandon Link who used the alias Mike Anthony."? If so can it please be referenced, verified, and brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Link. Thank you Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source?
Talk:Bitter Jester

message: I don't understand ... I am the *owner* of the name Bitter Jester ... I was correcting the description.  What formal process do I need to go through to make this change permanent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealBitterJester (talk • contribs) 
:First, read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). If your company meets the criteria  listed therein, then you may create a separate article for it. Call it "Bitter Jester Creative". Later, if that article is expanded and becomes more than a stub, we can add what is called a "disambiguation" link to the top of this article. For an example of what that looks like, see the article on apples. 
:In the meantime, please stop replacing the information in this article with information on your company. It is considered vandalism. - Jhinman 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation from "Bitter Jester" the company
Talk:Boomerang (1992 film)

message: Retrospective review of Boomberang from the AV Club. -- 109.76.241.233 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review
Talk:Metro (1997 film)

message: Missing cast listing, critical reception and box office material RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs More Info

message: The plot section reads as if it was written by a third grader who just finished a primer book: "Scott and Veronica have a dog named Troy." I'm tempted just to cut it down to "Eddy Murphy plays a SF police officer" until someone can rewrite it.RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted that dog-sentence after 2.5 years. :) -Koppapa (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Badly in need of revision

message: I think the headline says it all; this is not a comedy!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.190.109 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy??
Talk:Doctor Dolittle (1967 film)

message: No entry, independant or not, for this movie?
:That's under Dr. Dolittle (film). Carlo (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really a remake, or an adaptation of the same source? David (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the 1998 film?

message: I notice that the spelling of "pushme-pullyu" in this article differs from that in the Doctor Dolittle article here on Wikipedia - as well as from the books themselves. The correct spelling from the books is "pushmi-pullyu". Was it spelled differently in the movie? PMaranci (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushmi-pullyu spelling? 

message: >"As a result, in an upcoming Special Anniversary Blu-ray deluxe box-set release, 20th Century Fox intends to play audio from both Newley's version of the former as well as Harrison's version of the latter against production stills taken at the time of shooting to give the viewer an idea of how the missing footage might have originally appeared."
And did Fox play the audio? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be updated 

message: I read the Doctor Dolittle books as a child. I do not recall any "racist content." However, I was young and it was many years ago. Regardless, a statement like that requires more clarification. What racist content? Racist against which race and in favor of which race? What specifically was said in the books? --BenMcLean (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Racist content"?
Talk:Life (1999 film)

message: According to the article:
* Academy Award
** nominated for Best Makeup (2000)
However the article on Academy Award for Makeup makes no mention of this film in 2000! Error or vandalism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.135 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards? 

message: No mention of Gregory L. Hudson's lawsuit against Murphy and Heavy D.
Claiming use of materials in the film's script. ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.144.171 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregory L. Hudson lawsuit 

message: Life was also the name of a Chinese film which was nominated for an Academy Award (best foreign film), and has won four Chinese awards: A Golden Rooster Award, a Golden Deer Award, and two Hundred Flowers Awards.  Some mention should be made of it here, or this page should be turned into a disambiguation page.
108.198.156.74 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a 2017 film called Life. Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life (人生)
Talk:Dr. Dolittle 2

message: The page links “John Witherspoon” as a star in this film. While it is true that a man with the name played a character (a bear) in the film, the page links to a person with the same name that lived in the 1700s. I don’t know how to change it or else I would. Please fix. Cool879 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast
Talk:Daddy Day Care

message: Please, we need some more information on this film. It's very funny and colourful and this article needs attention, e.g. the budget, trivia etc.
Does anyone know any information on this film so they can add to it? Crazy Eddy 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More! 

message: The trivia section doesn't list sources at all. I'm pondering removal of it per WP:V, but I would like to see it sourced/integrated into the main part of the article, per WP:TRIVIA—arf! 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Thats to effing funny!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.185.26 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it actually true? If not, it's a pretty crap gag to have been in an article for nearly two years. tomasz. 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: KLINGON?
Talk:The Haunted Mansion (2003 film)

message: The cover listed was only one of the movie posters the one that featured Eddie Murphy. 128.107.248.220 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posters 
Talk:Cradle Will Rock

message: The section'Historical context and critical reaction' contains now (Sept 08) several academic-style quotes like (Weales 2000), (MacLeish, Cole 2000), (Alleva 2000). If pertinent, could someone give the proper references in wiki-style? Also, these appear to be leftovers from another text, quite likely [], which bears a copyright: (c) NationMaster.com 2003-5. There some references are given as:
Alleva, R. (2000) Ah, The Theater. Commonweal. 127(5) p. 21,
Cole, S. (2000) Cradle Will Rock. The American Historical Review. 105(4) pp. 1440-1441.
Weales, G. (2000) Tim Robbins Presents Cradle Will Rock, the Movie and The Moment. American Theatre. 17(4) p. 47  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.161.42 (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced quotes 

message: This article is written by authors who clearly respect the film and its complexity, but there's a taste of subjective analysis in both the plot and the section on historical context.  Minaker (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 
Talk:The Cradle Will Rock

message: This article isn't about the film.  Why is it part of the film project?  The film was also tagged. -- Samuel Wantman 06:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cradle Will Rock is not an opera.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.105.181 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments
Talk:Wild Things (film)

message: Not worth referring to in the article, but does anyone know the genesis of this bizarre surname. Did the (presumably) Irish Ryans of Blue Bay marry into a  German family? Does the book give any clue? The name is similar to the insulting name given to Frank Sinatra (Colonel Ryan) in "Von Ryan's Express". Perhaps the inspiration? Just wondering..... Hanoi Road (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM Do not ask these sorts of questions on article talk pages. The talk page is for discussions about how to improve the encyclopedia article, not discussions about the film itself. It is a film. a work of fiction, it is not real, it is made up. To give the question a serious answer anyway many names have been mistranslated or anglicized for whatever reason, and "Van Ryan" could in theory be a derivative of Dutch names such as Van Rijn. (The writer could also have purposefully picked a name that sounds almost real but not, so as to avoid accidentally using the name of any real people in the film.) -- 109.79.175.121 (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Ryan?
Talk:The Man Who Knew Too Little

message: Overall structure, including the plot device of getting caught up in Performance, similar to that used in 1965's The Intelligence Men.  No sign of any critics at time spotting that, so I guess we can't add that to article due to WP:OR. Bill Martin (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar Productions

message: This article lacks much of what most film articles contain, including reception. I invite anyone to expand this. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Everyone Knows Too Little

message: I would like to know how much of the film was scripted and how much was improvised? 
the plot is a man literally improvising his way through a "real life" spy story. That man is played by Bill Murray, one of the most gifted improvisers in comedy. I would guess his first scene at Customs and the last scene on the beach are both Murray babbling away sans script, but now I think about it, how much of the actual plot was other actors just stepping back and following Murray's lead? 
J Edward Malone (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  improvisation?