Talk:The Mouse That Roared

message: Returned book infobox request (I accidentally removed the infobox request because I thought the request was for a film infobox - sorry).
The film infobox has already been added.  I added the film infobox to the article on 29 April, 2006. Figaro 09:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I have removed the spoiler tag from the clearly marked "Plot summary" section.  --Tony Sidaway 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-inserted it, to draw a distinction between the plot summary and the ending.  This makes Wikipedia more useful and accessible, overall.  --Jere7my 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your argument.  How does inserting this unnecessary and unsightly clutter improve the article in any way? --Tony Sidaway 10:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It allows people who do not wish to know the ending to nevertheless access the remainder of the article. Labeling it "unnecessary and unsightly clutter" reveals your bias — you are opposed to spoiler tags in general, and do not have the good of this specific article in mind. --Jere7my 16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The book seems to be more to be enjoyed as a comedy than for its plot; there is no convincing argument that knowledge of the book's ending severely diminishes enjoyment of the book (in fact, knowledge of the ending makes me more interested in reading it). Also, it is almost 50 years old now, and there is little mystery surrounding the book that can be destroyed now. I have removed the tag. Kusma (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A plot section is supposed to discuss the ending.  There's no need to add a warning for information that is supposed to be there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler tag

message: Anyone noticed the similarity between The Mouse That Roared and Dr Strangelove? Both satires of international politics of the time, both deal with the threat of nuclear destruction, both have three roles for Peter Sellers and both shot in England by American directors. 203.171.199.232 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both have four syllables in the title - how could you pass up a moment of numerological significance? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mouse and Stranglelove

message: :Image:TheMouseThatRoared.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheMouseThatRoared.JPG

message: Shouldn't the novel and the adaptation be split off into separate articles?  Volunteer Marek  23:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: this list would seem to suggest that Saturday Plays had run an adaptation on Feb 15, 2003, so the 2010 playing would likely be merely a rebroadcast. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio edition date 

message: An editor has repeatedly added a subhead under "References" for "Notes". Being that there is no other material in that section, we do not need both headers. Either "References" or "Notes" falls within common Wikipedia practice. (The second level of header has also been misformatted, with improper use of the bold markup.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "References" are a class of things, "Notes" are a specific kind of reference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And the actual useful information that's conveyed to the reader by cluttering up the article with an additional layer of header which other articles seem to work just fine without is what, exactly? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That in the section of the article where all references go, here as the notes used in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to? There's nothing else there'. If you want them called "Notes", why not just call the section "Notes" and be done with it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at WP:FNNR, "Notes" is not a subset of "References"; References are a type of note, not the other way 'round, and there is no call for subheads when there is only a single group. I have simplified it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "References" and "Notes" 

message: One editor just tagged the reaction section for needing expansions, and another editor deleted that tag, indicating that on a book that old, where is more reaction to come from? I have restored that tag - on a major book from a major publisher, kept in print for decades and adapted to a range of other media, there is quite likely other reaction to be found (and still reaction to be generated). For one example, there's this New York Times review (by Ring Lardner's nephew!)... I'm not going to pay the four bucks the article would cost a non-subscriber, but it shows that sources are out there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you add that to the article then rather than fill this page. These expand section tags can clutter up a page and rarely if ever are acted on - In my 7+ years I have yet to see one bring anything to an article. We can see that the section is small and if anyone wants to add to it they are certainly welcome to. Thanks for your work in finding items and again please add them to the article. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction