Talk:The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)

message: I'm pleased to report that (with the possible exception of stability, but I let that slide) this article passes- with flying colors- every criterion of WP:WIAGA, and is well-deserving of the title Good Article. It is extremely well-sourced, very comprehensive, cites everything that needs to be cited (which, believe me, is not the same as being well-sourced), and is NPOV. My sole issue with the article are very slight grammatical problems, such as the occasional- but rare- missing comma, but I see no reason not to award this article Good Article status. Well done! -- Kicking222 14:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the above editors for the kind words and everyone who has offered advice and critique. Dmoon1 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article!

message: The citations were fine; nothing was missing. You didn't pay careful attention to the Notes section. According to Wikipedia:Citation templates, these templates are not required in articles and "editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus". I am the sole author main contributor of this article and do not care for the template's citation style, so I use the Chicago Manual of Style citation system which is easy to use without the messiness of the templates. Dmoon1 16:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just read this deleted statement, I don't want people to think I have claimed ownership of this (or any) article. I'm not sure how you determine consensus when a single editor contributes to an article (although I assume the opinions formed by others at peer review and here constitute some kind of consensus), but I would like to note that my revert of the cite templates was based on statements at Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources ("Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor.") None of the edits made by other editors during peer review or FAC have been reverted unless they conflict with a WP policy or the MoS. Again, I thank everyone who has offered advice on ways this article can be improved. It is all appreciated. Dmoon1 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not the sole author of this article and its not up to you to make that call. Claiming ownership over the style and contributions is a reportable offense and in direct violation of WP:NOT. This is a wiki. Also User:Mkdw included the publisher and ISBN numbers for some of the references that were missing. Your reverts effectively removed information and thus considered vandalism. If you revert these changes again you will be in violation of WP:3RR as well as wiping information. Please be WP:CIVIL in this acknowledge that Wikipedia is a group collaboration. Langara College 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter if you used the Chicago style, you still wiped the publisher, year and ISBN information from the reference in general. The Chicago Manual style still asks for them and why would you remove that information? 142.35.144.2 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not vandalized this article (as claimed on my talk page. There is nothing missing from the references in the Notes section: in the original version before cite templates were added, notes 17, 31, 32, 34, and 36 appear to be missing information, but they are not. These sources have already been referenced in the article (notes 1, 16, 24, and 33), and therefore, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, do not repeat the full publication information as in the original note. All that is required is author's last name, brief title, and page number. In the version with cite templates, information is now needlessly repeated (see notes 1 & 17, 24 & 35), but using two different citation styles. Plus, some of the repeated references are STILL using the original Chicago Manual of Style abbreviated style. Dmoon1 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I just realized the quad poster title marks the film as "The Cat and Canary" without the "the" between "and" + "Canary". Is this a forgery of the poster? Or was this just a common mis-print? or even an ackward alternative title for the film?Andrzejbanas 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just a misprint. The opening title shot (or whatever it's called) clearly lists it as The Cat and the Canary. Dmoon1 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cat and Canary

message: I was surprised to see that the reference to the "old dark house" school of films redirects to "haunted house", which is not the same thing at all.  "Old dark house" is a specific, albeit small and antique, sub-genre of film and is marked by a number of trophes -- a clutching hand coming out of a secret panel, secret passages, eyes in a portrait that move because there is someone observing from behind the portrait, terrified servants and, most importantly, the fact that everything in the film can be explained by the actions of a human criminal.  This film is definitely one of the cornerstones of the "old dark house" genre (as is "The Bat", from the novel by Mary Roberts Rinehart) but has nothing to do with a "haunted house".  I have removed the redirect, which leaves the genre a red-lined link, and have made a note to come back and create an "old dark house" article when I have found appropriate references. Accounting4Taste 21:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the article was first written, there was not an article on "old dark house" films (and as you pointed out, there still isn't), so the link was made to the closest thing: haunted house. It would be great if you started an article on the old dark house film sub-genre. Dmoon1 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be pleased to do that, and have made a note to do so, but I don't know if I could come up with acceptable references -- anything I wrote at the moment would only qualify as original research. I need to dig out some of my reference books from storage.  I note that you have done a lot in this article to differentiate between "old dark house" and "haunted house", and I appreciated your understanding of the distinction -- my only objection was the link to "haunted house".  Accounting4Taste 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Dmoon1 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old Dark House"