Talk:Breakfast at Tiffany's (film)

message: Many other film entries based on books have sections listing major deviations from the source material.  I think this would be a prime candidate for such a section.  However, I have not read the book yet (and even if I did, that would be considered 'original research').  I'm hoping somebody can take a bite on this.  I'll try myself when I get time...  --Bridgecross (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences section?

message: Holly Golightly first appeared in the the pages of Truman Capote's
short novel, Breakfast at Tiffany's in 1958 - from there her story has inspired
what is considered one of the most memorable romantic films of all time, 
a classic fashion style, and the most popular and reproduced theme song
in cinema history. 
It is a short book that can easily be read in one sitting. 
what does that mean?
:What are you talking about? Pcb21| Pete 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old chat/comments

message: The below passage does not appear to be objective:
 
"A number of changes had to be made to
make the storyline acceptable to a film 
audience and fans of Audrey Hepburn. For 
example, in the novella, Holly is more 
explicitly described as being a prostitute, 
something only hinted at in the film. There 
was also no love story between the narrator 
(played by George Peppard in the film) and 
Holly, because he was a closet homosexual. 
Capote's novel also included language that 
was toned down as well as a more complex ending which became a conventional romantic 
happy ending for the film."
First, as far as I can see, the book makes no more explicit reference to Holly's 'profession' than does the movie.  
Second, there are no references to Paul Varjak as a closet homosexual in the book.  In fact, he states that his hand wants to feel Holly (in a sexual manner) as he is massaging her back.
: I aggree. Be Bold and change it!! Monkey Tennis 15:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished reading the book. I absolutely must agree that the book makes no more explicit reference to Holly's 'profession' than does the movie. I never ever interpreted the the book's writer character, known as "Fred" in the book and christened Paul Varjak for the film, to be homosexual. Nowhere is this even hinted at, while he has a strong and intense longing for Holly that seems like unrequited love. Also, where in the book do Holly and Mag enter into a possibly "bisexual" (?) relationship? They are both strongly and fervently heterosexual in the book, and Holly clearly states that she is not a lesbian. Main change from book to movie is the film's addition of the Tooley character, as portrayed by Patricia Neal, a character who absolutely is not in the book. Asa01 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonfactual points 

message: "In the original novella, Holly and Mag Wildwood, a model with a stuttering problem enter into a vaguely bisexual relationship." More "vague" than "bisexual" one would think.  What would a bisexual relationship be like? Who would be partaking of a "bisexual" relationship? --Wetman 05:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who would be partaking of a "bisexual" relationship?" Bisexual people, of course. A bisexual relationship would be like any other relationship, accept that one or both partners are bisexual. Simple as that. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vaguely bisexual" indeed!

message: The tagline says it all... why does this article redirect from the word "Orangey"? I have not seen the film, nor did I find anything in the article pertaining to Oranges or Orangey-ness.  Just wondering. 
136.142.22.231 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got me. Maybe it's the name of the cat? Haven't a clue. 23skidoo 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it the name of the cat that portrays Holly's cat, which remains unnamed, in the film. Asa01 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the animal actor particularly notable? If not, I don't really see the need for a redirect. I'd support RFD. 23skidoo 14:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it a redirect to Orangy, the name of the cat actor who played Cat. Angr (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the re-direct from "Orangey"? 

message: The character played by patricia neil is supposed to be named 2E, not Tooley. I have made this cange. I watched the film, and the subtitles reffered to her as 2e.
: I agree 100%. I have no idea where that character name came from. Even on the DVD featurette her character is referred to as 2E. 23skidoo 00:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time she is introduced, she is refered as Mrs Falenson. I replaced 2-E references in the Plot section with Mrs Falenson, hope that is ok. It seemed strange to refer to her as 2-E like some kind of prisoner. Alexandru Stanoi (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tooley 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed    
:There are no references. Tarret 11:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: I notice that the article is included in the category "1995 singles", which undoubtedly refers to the pop song of the same title, by Deep Blue Something, with lyrics that reference the movie, as follows:
::And I said, "What about 'Breakfast at Tiffany's?'"
::She said, "I think I remember the film,
::And as I recall, I think, we both kind of liked it."
::And I said, "Well that's, the one thing we've got."
Obviously the link intended to be that song shouldn't point to this article.  Somebody who knows something about Everclear's music (unlike me) ought to start an article with a title like "Breakfast at Tiffany's (song)".  Since I hear this song on the radio all the time, eleven years after it came out, I'm guessing it's plenty notable.
And just maybe, the fact that the movie was specifically referenced in a widely played hit song is worth mentioning in this article.  But here again, I'll leave that to someone who knows this material. Kestenbaum 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The song is already mentioned in the section "Tributes"; however, there it is attributed to Deep Blue Something rather than Everclear. User:Angr 11:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with song? 

message: the article states Paul's last name as "Paul Varjak", but I think I remember him in fact spelling it out in the film as "Paul Varjack" does anyone remember specifically? --Gtorell 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Paul's name 

message: I have made this page the main page for search links for "Breakfast at Tiffany's", since in contemporary culture the movie is surely the main meaning one has in mind for the phrase.  This is attested by google and by the fact that the movie has very much overtaken the novella in popularity.  I am in the process of pasting (i.e., word for word) the former sections about the book (actually, a novella) and the play (which I had never heard of before) into new pages, which link from the disambiguation page. On that last page, I am also adding the link to the entry about the song of the same name. --Sp3lly 13:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go to edit page and delete the tag. However if we're going to split the article up we need to change some titles around. The original novel needs to have the "undisambiguated" Breakfast at Tiffany's title, while the film article needs to be named Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). 23skidoo 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  I think the movie should have the "undisambiguated" page, for reasons I state both above and at the disambiguation page I created, namely that the movie has largely overtaken the novella in the public consciousnness as far as what the term "Breakfast at Tiffany's" means.  In addition, the page about the movie is far more complete than the one about the novella, which barely has any information. --Sp3lly 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Does the title comes from her eating some pastries while looking in the window? I don't remember. --Gbleem 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that is where the title comes from, as the opening scene in the movie has her eating pastries and drinking coffee outside of Tiffany's early in the morning before Tiffany's is open.  --Sp3lly 06:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, ulimately the title comes from the novella of the same name by Truman Capote. :) --Sp3lly 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I rewrote the sentence.  I changed "one of two dresses" to "one of three dresses," which is what is stated in both the BBC reference already provided and also in the official Christie's catalog for the item .  It should also be kept in mind that, contrary to most news reports, the dress auctioned by Christie's was not the dress worn by Audrey in the movie.  This is clearly explained in the Christie's reference.  The dress sold at auction has a thigh-length slit; the dress worn by Audrey in the movie did not have any slit. Movie posters such as the one shown in the article, and possibly PR photos, may show a dress with a slit. But such a dress wasn't used in the movie. --Sp3lly 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  *Trivia* Auction of BAT dress by Christie's 

message: I have removed the following text from this article:
:There is also a remake in talks. Mandy Moore is rumoured to be playing the role that Hepburn originated.
There is no source and there is nothing about it on IMDB. Also, it is the contributor's only edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.223.142.1 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mandy Moore]]? 

message: I believe a better summary could be written for the movie.
In addition, I think several paragraphs do not belong in the summary.  This especially applies to the paragraph discussing the lack of traffic when filming the opening scene: shouldnt this go in trivia or interesting tid bits or somewhere?
Likewise, does the commentary on the appropriateness of Mickey Rooney playing Mr Yunioshi belong in the movie summary?
One might also ask the same about the Audrey's original performance of "Moon River." Sp3lly 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: It is not a "Hollywood myth" that Truman Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play the role of Holly Golightly in the film.  This is a fact that has been documented several times, not the least by Mr Capote himself (see Audrey Hepburn by Barry Paris, p 170, where he references a quote by Capote). 
Paris (p. 170) continues that "George Axelrod was hired to tailor the screenplay for Monroe." Monroe acted out two scenes for Capote and Paris quotes Capote as saying "She wanted [the role] so badly."
Paris continues by quoting "Monroe's dramatic advisor, Paula Strasberg" as declaring "she would not have her play a role of a lady of the evening."
Paris continues with another quote by Capote (who sold the film rights): "Paramount double-crossed me in every way and cast Audrey." 
Therefore I am re-writing that section, with a view toward making it more like the original content before someone changed it and said this was all a myth. Sp3lly 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, however, that Strasberg was apparently held the common but unfortunate perception that the Holly of the novella is a prostitute/call girl.  For Capote's flat rebuttal/denial of this, see Section 31 on this page. Sp3lly (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman Capote and Marilyn Monroe (screenplay) 

message: I removed references to the song being made a hit by Andy Williams. Surely this and other such facts would better fit in the trivia section and not in the movie summary. Sp3lly --71.145.206.164 07:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details about the song "Moon River" 

message: I wonder if anyone could add anything about Mickey Rooney in "yellowface" as the bucktoothed Japanese landlord who sneaks peeps at Audrey Hepburn.
I deleted the phrase that said that wearing yellow face was a common practice when the film was made, as this was not cited or supported by anything.
I can't believe how freakin' racist that role was!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.1.69 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you guys go out of your way to create controversy. People like this exist. You can meet them, if you leave your cocoon and travel around the world a bit. Talk to actual people and go do actual things. The role was a comedy bit; Mickey Rooney was a comedian. He was good at it. That's what comedy is. I don't understand why y'all have to arrive here to wage your culture-war battles. Take it somewhere else. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yellow face]]

message: I have changed the title of "Trivia" to "Notes" - this seems to go better with Wikipedia's dislike for "trivia", but it could be up for debate. It is still tagged.
Also I have changed “Tributes” to “Cultural Reference”. Things like references in Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Gossip Girl, and CSI:NY are not tributes as much as allusions. Aloha princess 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" to "Notes"; "Tribute" to "Cultural reference"  

message: The "Breakfast at Tiffany's page should be about the novella, and the BAT film should be on the disambiguation. The coined title was originally a novella, and since it's a fairly good known book throughout the world, I think that the URL should lead to the book, not the movie that was made later. 
I know that it's a big production movie, and maybe more people have seen the film than read the book; but so is also the case with for example The Lord of the Rings, but here the (LOTR) movie is found under disambiguation.
Does anyone agree? If nobody argues against it, I'll change it sometime.
NeonfruitSupermarked (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Even more, in my opinion too much from the book has been changed in the movie. Nevertheless, the movie came out after the book and used it as a scratch. I was expecting to find the books page when looking up the title in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.7.137 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Breakfast at Tiffany's main site should be about the novella 

message: There have been a lot of points added about this story being based on the life of Carol Grace. I removed those points because there are no solid references to back them up. There is no mention of Carol in the DVD commentary or in any of the documentary feature on the DVD, or in any of Audrey's bios. 
If the points about Grace should be included somewhere, it should be in the article about the novella by Capote. This is because the movie is an interpretation and is not loyal to the novella. The film changes his story and many intentions that he may have had; therefore, Carol Grace has nothing to do with this film. Aloha princess (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carol Grace]] 

message: I've added a proper plot synopsis as the previous one wasn't a plot synopsis at all, but it needs touching up. I will also add a section about "interpretation" as to what Holly and Paul do, because that doesn't fit into the plot anywhere. I'll take it out of the old plot as it was explained well there. Is this a bad / good idea? Aloha princess (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New plot synopsis  

message: I'dd add something more to the criticism. The Character Holly Golightly has been changed in a boring way. In the novella, she was way more dominating. For example, as she entered his room over the fireladder, she commanded him directly to mix her a drink. In the movie, she's offering to make him a drink.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.7.137 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More criticism 

message: I'm pretty sure that Buddy Ebsen's character had a different last name.  "Holly Golightly" was an assumed name, not her birth name.
:I think you are right. Jonathunder (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he does actually introduce himself as "Doc Golightly" in the film. May have something to her being once married to Doc. Anyway, it is correct. - kollision (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doc Golightly? 

message: there was a line saying that mag wildwood makes a brief appearance with her stutter in tact. this is not true. mag wildwood's character in the movie does indeed stutter. she says "b-bourban" and "m-melt in your mouth". so if there's any questions i removed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.208.228 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "stutter in tact" means that Mag does stutter. So I am not sure what your point was. But it is moot now, since the line is no longer there. Sp3lly (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stutter]] 

message: I've moved this here as it was out of place in the plot section and appeared to be original research.
 Skomorokh, barbarian  06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that the movie strongly implies anything about Holly's source of income.  I believe it is deliberately vague (despite comments I may have made two or three years ago).  I also think it is erroneous to say that Holly's occupation in the novella is that of a call girl. To me that is a misinterpretation (no matter how commonly held) of the book.  The best term, I think, for her in both the movie and the novella is "gold digger."  She made her living off of the money of rich men over forty.  Sure she had sex with them -- but she states in the novella that she had had sex with a limited number of men (less than 15, if I recall). --Sp3lly (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So she's not a particularly active prostitute, but she's exchanging sex for money, and that's pretty well defined. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Truman Capote flatly denied that the Holly Golightly of the novella is a call girl/prostitute. See new section below with citation. Sp3lly (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot interpretation 

message: I changed the plot synopsis from "After feeding the pet cat she calls "Cat", Holly... to " After feeding the pet cat she refuses to name, Holly..." .I also removed a couple of other similar references to "Cat" as Holly's name for the animal. The cat's name isn't "Cat". She calls it "cat" or "the cat" because she implicitly refuses to name the animal. 
He's all right! Aren't you, cat? Poor cat! Poor slob! Poor slob without a name! The way I see it I haven't got the right to give him one. We don't belong to each other. We just took up one day by the river. I don't want to own anything until I find a place where me and things go together. I'm not sure where that is but I know what it is like. It's like Tiffany's. --Holly Golightly
She makes a big deal about NOT naming the cat and, in the movie it is used as a device to show insight into Holly's personality (she doesn't want to own things and vice-versa) and during the end of the movie Holly puts the cat outside to show Paul that she won't be caged by anyones love, not even the cats. Even though she loves it, she would have little/no problem just letting it go. Its not until she realizes that Paul is right (after her tells her what "her problem" is) that she gets out of the cab to go after Paul and the cat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.195.111 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat 

message: Truman Capote flatly denies that Holly Golightly of his novella is a prostitute/call girl. See excerpts from a 1968 Playboy interview that speak directly to this point; the excerpts and the topic are in this New Yorker article. I reproduce the Playboy excerpts here, should the link disappear or become invalid:
:Playboy: Would you elaborate on your comment that Holly was the prototype of today's liberated female and representative of a "whole breed of girls who live off men but are not prostitutes. They're our version of the geisha girl."?
:Capote: Holly Golightly was not precisely a callgirl. She had no job, but accompanied expense-account men to the best restaurants and night clubs, with the understanding that her escort was obligated to give her some sort of gift, perhaps jewelry or a check ... if she felt like it, she might take her escort home for the night. So these girls are the authentic American geishas, and they're much more prevalent now than in 1943 or 1944, which was Holly's era.
Note that a genuine Geisha is not a prostitute, nor does a man hiring a Geisha do so with the expectation that she might provide sexual favors. He does so with the expectation that she will provide him with entertainment and stimulating conversation. 
Now the above goes for the novella. But the filmmakers' may have been operating under the common but unfortunate misunderstanding that Holly is a prostitute. Her means of supporting herself in the film is subject to interpretation, although the newspaper headlines that call her such things as starlet, cafe society girl, glamor girl, are basically correct, once the erroneous idea that she has to be a prostitute because that is what she is in the novella is shed. Sp3lly (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman Capote denied that the Holly of the novella is a call girl/prostitute 

message: I noticed the added update about another protest organized against the film because of its portrayal of Mr Yunioshi. Granted that this portrayal is a major eyesore of the film and one which many viewers, of all ethnic backgrounds, wish wasn't there: I think that this article is NOT about this subject (the portrayal of Mr Yunioshi) but about the movie BAT.  As it is, the section on the legacy of the film has about six or seven lines about its overall legacy and at least THREE TIMES as many lines devoted to the portrayal of Yunioshi. Granted that the portrayal is offensive to many people, even to non-Asian viewers, yet it seems to me that too much length is devoted to this aspect of the film. I would suggest enlarging the section about the legacy of the film in society as a whole. However, I am not familiar enough with this matter to do it. But surely the legacy of BAT is much more than 1/4 general legacy and 3/4 protest about Mickey Rooney's depiction. As an alternative, as matters stand now, I would suggest moving the bulk of the "Protest" material to a new page, making a separate article of the material, and having a header here pointing readers to that article.  As the overall article stands now, readers of the article in its entirety are getting an imbalance of information. After all this article is not supposed to be a record of every single new Yunioshi protest that comes along. However a separate article on that matter would be appropriate. Sp3lly (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayal of Mr Yunioshi overempahsized in comparison to rest of film's legacy 

message: In view of the above-mentioned imbalance, I have carried forth the above suggested alternative of creating a new article that goes into some depth and mentions the contemporary protests.  Most of that article is made up of material formerly found in this article under the Portrayal of Yunioshi section. This action renders the overall present article more balanced as far as the film's legacy goes -- although MUCH MORE could be added regarding the overall legacy of the film. While those interested in in-depth coverage of the Rooney-Yunioshi portrayal, including adding more links to contemporary protests can do so at that page. Sp3lly (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of new article for much of Mr Yunioshi Protest material 

message: This is a problem. Vranak (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The characters of Yunioshi and O.J. are mentioned in the plot section, without any explanation of who they are. 

message: I propose that we merge Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) with the regular Breakfast at Tiffany's page and turn the regular page into Breakfast at Tiffany's (disambiguation). I feel that the film is the most well-known media with the title of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and feel that it should just be called that without the film at the end of the title since other films like Forrest Gump and Fight Club don't have them as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.82.208.1 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: There has been a great deal of discussion, both on this talk page as well as in the media, regarding the ambiguity of Holly Golightly's profession in the movie. Here are just a few articles from some of the more major news sources dealing with this question alone - The Telegraph, The New York Times, The New Yorker.
Capote, as has been previously discussed on the talk page, described Holly as an "American geisha", stating in a 1968 Playboy interview: 
:Holly Golightly was not precisely a callgirl. She had no job, but accompanied expense-account men to the best restaurants and night clubs, with the understanding that her escort was obligated to give her some sort of gift, perhaps jewelry or a check ... if she felt like it, she might take her escort home for the night. So these girls are the authentic American geishas, and they're much more prevalent now than in 1943 or 1944, which was Holly's era.
It would be unfair to label her a "prostitute" and I think calling her an "American geisha" without any explanation would be incomplete and awkward diction for an encyclopedic article. Capote does refer to her male companions as "escorts" and not "dates" in the above quote which I think is important. 
On the other hand, not discussing her profession at all (which is how the article currently stands), particularly with the amount of discussion about this aspect of the movie in the media, comes across as an attempt to whitewash the film. Her profession frames the entire plot, and, at least judging from news sources, the absence of its discussion in the article does not seem to reflect a consensus of opinion on the subject. 
Similar to the section on the "yellowface controversy", I would like to propose a separate section that briefly summarizes the discussion on this point in the media as well as Capote's own comments which I think are paramount. Please let me know as to your thoughts. I enjoy sandwiches (talk)  20:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But Capote's talking about his conception of Holly Golightly in the novel, and that's where this should be developed, I think. Holly Golightly in the movie isn't quite the same character. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  that there is a difference between how Holly Golightly is portrayed in the novel and in the film. Discussion of her 'profession' on the film's talk page would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's not related to improving the article, which this discussion has been, so far. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion thus far on the talk page about the differences in her portrayal in the film vs the movie and the decision to not address these distinctions in the article are WP:OR and come across as editorializing in intent. A section should be included discussing the differences between the movie and novella as discussed in third party references, particularly with regards to her profession.  Again, this is a large part of the public discussion surrounding the film and should be part of the article. I enjoy sandwiches (talk)  17:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What language are you proposing? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Holly Golightly's profession

message: In the movie Holly says that she gets paid at least 50 bucks for a trip to the "powder room" or the "female john" (i. e. the ladies' bathroom). What does this mean? I just don't get it. What does she do in there? Maikel (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it. In the 1950 novel, Holly makes it clear that she expects her date to give her at least $50 each as small change for the bathroom and as taxi money (as well as paying her and her friends' restaurant and bar tap) if he wants to come up to her apartment at the end of the evening. When a "friend" doesn't get the hint and actually only gives her 20 cents for the toilet, she leaves him outside the door at the end of the evening. So on a successful night she earns a bit less than $100, around US$1600 in today's money. Maikel (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: The powder room

message: There are several more articles in Wikipdia which are entitled "Breakfast at Tiffany's" I recommend that this article is headed by a tag saying "For other uses, please go to Breakfast at Tiffany's, disambiguation. YTKJ (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary as there already is a disambiguation page and this lemma mentions the film aspect. Maikel (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for Disambiguation template

message: The redirect Breakfast at Tiffany's (film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 18:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Breakfast at Tiffany's (film]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]