Talk:A Special Day

"Root Violently"

LOL, is this really the language to use in an encyclopaedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.64 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing

"..Antonietta, a native and sentimental homemaker" - this is very odd English. Was "naive" the intended word? Although there can, perhaps, be little naive about a woman who has borne six children and whose husband knocks her about. Harfarhs (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on A Special Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151117021146/http://www.daviddidonatello.it/english/cercafilmvincitori2.php?idfilm=466&vinfilm=una%20giornata%20particolare to http://www.daviddidonatello.it/english/cercafilmvincitori2.php?idfilm=466&vinfilm=una%20giornata%20particolare

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Special Day. 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/20091003155803/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/1977/inCompetition.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/1977/inCompetition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Good faith edits

Dear Ribbet32 I noticed that you have made several edits to this page. Some that have drastically changed the tone and intent of the film and its characters, not to mention grammar and description. Although I trust these were done in WP:GF, I am bringing my concerns to the talk page for specific reasons so that you are not surprised by reverts administered toward your edits and additions. Please understand this is nothing personal, but in keeping with WP standards and quality regarding article format. I will try and be as concise as possible in each revert summary; however, if you have certain questions: please feel free to bring them here to the talk page for discussion. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you see mistakes in grammar, you can fix them. But the edits have made the article more accurate if you've actually seen the film, in terms of describing the characters and events. What was here before was very poor. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ribbet32 Yes. I have seen the film. Several times. But I would not boast as your user page does that my edits "substantial improved" the article. What you have contributed are personal views and opinions of the characters and the intent of the film's message that are not cited with reliable sources supported with reason to change. i.e. "Themes addressed include fascism and LGBT rights in Italy." This needs a reliable source if you are to include such a strong statement with a direct term such as "LGBT right in Italy". To reduce this film to 2 chosen topics such as these negates the beauty of the relationship between these two people. Furthermore, you have changed distinctive meanings of the characters intent, thought and motives by carefully chose words such as: opinions to demeanor, and who has shown a preference for an educated women (side note: incorrect grammar) without proper reliable sources to back up such a strong unsubstantiated fact. These can be contested and reverted simply on the grounds of basic WP non-compliance of cited sources. However, I am pointing out that these are personal opinions and not proven facts. I will be reverting within these guidelines. You may bring them to for further discussion here if you please as is your right; but I would advise not to edit war unless you have the proper sources to cite such claims. On a side note: the English spelling of neighbor is "neighbor" not "neighbour". Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. This comes up on my watchlist anyway. You don't entirely know what you're talking about; "neighbour" is the correct spelling in Canadian English, and the article states it is a Canadian co-production; this is MOS:STRONGNAT, given the main production country does not speak English. This will shock you, but there is a world outside of the United States. Second, the intro summarizes the article and typically, citations are not placed there. Various authors talk about fascism and the film's statements on homosexuality; various references to this have been provided in the article. She is surprised at his demeanour, she is taken aback when she starts laughing. Her reactions to his opinions come later in the plot, if you've actually seen the film. She does talk about her husband's preference for an educated woman. Perhaps you've seen a very poorly translated version. Plot sections do not need references; the source is the film itself. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Your brusque reply sadly will not get you anywhere, I'm afraid. I'm not going to argue with you on personal opinions and incorrect statements. I will however revert what I find to be unsubstantiated inclusions and unreliably sourced edits and you can bring them here for consensus. Your tone might want to lessen a bit toward the more congenial side of cooperation if you wish to gain editorial agreement. Maineartists (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversions

As discussed in the above section, here are the reversions in process for implementation. It is clear by the edit history that the initial edits were carried out in an "edit-as-you-go" fashion; rather than a sandbox draft that would allow research and proofing. Due to this application, there have been errors and challenged inclusions not supported with reliable sources that seem needless in certain cases. Beside each RV, the challenged reason is given for discussion and consensus before allowance of reinsertion. Normally I would "ping" the original editor, but I have been advised against doing so.

• ’’neighbour’’: the simple reasoning given that the film was "co-produced in Canada" does not warrant a British spelling of this word on the English WP article page. It is an Italian film. The correct spelling in English for this page is: “neighbor”.
• "Themes addressed include fascism and LGBT rights in Italy". This is a fractured / incomplete sentence. Furthermore, it seems the original inclusion has mistakenly taken this term: gender roles under the section ‘’’Themes’’’ to reference “LGBT”; which it does not. Also, in an effort to support the claim, under ‘’’Reception’’’, an attempt has been made to link LGBT authors with their critical reception of the film; but no support for inclusion of this term merits the insertion into the lede. There is no supporting claim within the article or film to support: “Lesbian, {Gay}, Bi-Sexual or Transgender” themes in this film in the true sense of the term.
• “overworked” / “exhausted” implies the same manner of state. The change from “sentimental” to describe Antoinetta to these two similar words, reduced her description. It was unnecessary to change.
• “perceived” - there is absolutely nothing “‘’perceived’’” about his homosexuality. This is a very heavily connotated implication by its inclusion regarding the character and the plot of this film and time in history. With the use of the word “and”, the preceding “perceived” applies to both. If it was the editor’s intent to only include “anti-fascist stance”, then “homosexuality” should have been placed first, followed by “perceived anti-fascist stance". It is never “perceived” Gabriele is homosexual; since he is flat out fired from his job for being such.
• Despite where it falls in the film, Antoinetta is clearly surprised by Gabriele’s “opinions” more than the isolated "demeanor" scene in which she laughs. The “plot” is a summary and does not adhere precisely to timeline but overall sense of the story. Similar to using the word: “eventually” in the following paragraph regarding the act of sex. If anything, they should have been combined.
• “Rumba” - yes, they dance; but for the sake of citing WP as a source, this statement must be backed up by a reliable source for such a claim.
• “who has shown a preference for an educated women”; the character himself does not definitively show a preference within the film. This is a misleading statement of action that does not occur.
• “indicating” - once again, this is a completely different meaning entirely from its original wording: “stating”. There is no reliable source cited to support that in Fascist Italy during this time Filogamo was required to carry a certificate “indicating” he was a homosexual (which implies suggestion) rather than stating which “expresses something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.” It was a needless change.

These are the edits that are scheduled for reversion back to their original content; or combined inclusion as stated above. A grace period for discussion will be allowed before RVs. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:3O request

A third opinion is requested in response to this dispute, otherwise a time sink. User:Maineartists has literally indicated a refusal to listen to any dissenting arguments or reasons from me, "I'm not going to argue with you on personal opinions", so I will address this to the reviewer. Maineartists has come in with a very condescending attitude, starting off with the header "Good faith edits", as if to indicate the edits would appear to be vandalism and good faith has to be assumed. As you can see from the previous version, the article needed much development, as far as film articles go; we see no production, no release, no themes or analysis, no critical reception, and only nine references, as well as an unreferenced "Special scenes" section, something that doesn't quite match the format of film FAs (American Beauty (1999 film), Hotel Chevalier, Blade Runner). Much of the arrogance has been unbecoming, including picking at "incorrect" grammar and spelling (actually a national variance) rather than editing, and threatening to act unilaterally no matter what "I will however revert what I find to be unsubstantiated inclusions and unreliably sourced edits and you can bring them here for consensus." This approach hampers collaboration and is not constructive. However, I will confine this to content dispute.

Maineartists states "the simple reasoning given that the film was 'co-produced in Canada' does not warrant a British spelling of this word on the English WP article page. It is an Italian film. The correct spelling in English for this page is: neighbor." I was actually the first to point out this is mainly an Italian film; but Italy doesn't speak English, and non-English doesn't default to "American spelling prevails." The so-called "simple" reasoning actually cited MOS:STRONGNAT, and the spelling is Canadian English, not British. This is just as India-related articles, not in Hindi, would use Indian English and not American English. "co-produced in Canada" is also misquoting my comments.

"There is absolutely nothing perceived about his homosexuality"- this refers to the term in the article "perceived anti-fascist stance." At 1:04:10, subtitle reads, "I don't think I'm an antifascist" (hence perceived). If Maineartists feels homosexuality should come first, why not fix this instead of attempting to humiliate another editor on a talk page?

"Rumba - yes, they dance; but for the sake of citing WP as a source, this statement must be backed up by a reliable source for such a claim.- Subtitles at 0:33:42 state "What are we doing?" "The rumba!"

"The change from sentimental to describe Antoinetta to these two similar words, reduced her description. It was unnecessary to change." This appears to fail Maineartist's own demands: who says she's sentimental?

"indicating - once again, this is a completely different meaning entirely from its original wording: stating"- source for this is a Council of Europe book which states the certificate gave the "effect" of him not being a homosexual. This is closer to "indicating" than "stating".

"who has shown a preference for an educated women"- Subtitles at 1:23: "We haven't laughed together since we were engaged. He does his laughing elsewhere now." 1:24 "He picks a woman with an education." She read his letter.

"The 'plot' is a summary"- at only 295 words, this is well below MOS:PLOT's recommendation of "between 400 and 700 words."

LGBT rights in Italy is the name of the Wikipedia article linked and includes gay rights. It can be piped, but this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Template:Sofixit.

If the goal of all this was to humiliate me for boldly researching and expanding the article, it fell well short of that; copyedits are always welcome and are part of Wikipedia's natural and necessary development, though with threats to revert everything I've done, I am a little concerned about the editor's non-constructive attitude. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The installation of the WP:3O request on Feb. 9 to the revisions instituted on Feb. 12 does not allow enough time to amply pass for other editors to research reliable sources let alone to study the challenged content to provide third-party conclusions or contributions to this discussion. The original content is still challenged in some cases and will remain so; although certain adjustments seem to have assuaged prior contest. Above personal accusations are superfluous and without merit in this discussion. Challenged unsourced original edits will be reverted one week from this post with a detailed edit summary and talk page explanation linked for discussion. Thanks Maineartists (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: It seems to me that these edits made a significant improvement to the article. In particular, the Themes section is comprehensively referenced, and states the opinions of reliable sources, not the editor's opinions. It more than justifies the statement in the lead that the film deals with fascism and LGBT rights (being dismissed from your job and deported for being homosexual is certainly a matter of LGBT rights). The plot synopsis has been improved by the addition of relevant details such as the myna and the attempted suicide, and to me at least, the additions have not "drastically changed the tone and intent of the film and its characters". I can't see any justification for saying that things like "dances the rumba" need to be sourced when nothing else in the synopsis is sourced. As regards other criticisms, "Themes addressed include fascism and LGBT rights in Italy" is not a fractured or incomplete sentence; it has a subject – "themes addressed", a verb – "include", and an object – "fascism and LGBT rights". And "indicating he was not homosexual" and "stating he was not homosexual" mean essentially the same thing. The article is still not perfect, and there is nothing to stop anybody from making further edits, but any large-scale reversion would not be justified. Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Scolaire! Thanks so much for weighing in as a third-opinion on this matter! It is greatly appreciated and very much needed to reach a consensus. Many of your comments do not need a rebuttal since my initial contest to challenged edits do not warrant: "any large-scale reversion". Such additions as "myna" and "attempted suicide" were never an issue and are not seeking third-opinion consensus. Specifically, certain "tone changing" additions such as the inclusion of LGBT rights in Italy as placed in the lede for this particular article, however, are being contested since the term itself and link are both misleading at best. The term "LGBT" was created in the 1990s. The link itself only refers to a mere one line under History in an article that focuses mainly on rights in the 2000s. Furthermore, there is nothing within this article that later goes on to support placing this term "LGBT" theme in its lede: WP:CREATELEAD. To say the "Themes" in the lede for this article should be reduced to two: "facism" and "LGBT rights in Italy" does indeed "drastically change the tone" of this article; considering the entire setting of this plot revolves around the central characters (further explained within the themes). It was unnecessary to mention these two themes - especially one that does not correctly historically define the time period: 1938. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you do make two good points about the LGBT thing: the initialism is anachronistic in terms of the fascist period, and the fascist period gets practically no coverage in the linked article. It might be better to say that the themes include fascism and the Mussolini government's treatment of homosexuals. This is what I meant when I said that there is nothing to stop anybody from making further edits. But to say that the article body does not support putting it in the lead is wrong: as I said, both the Themes section and the plot summary make clear that it is a major theme. And saying that themes include A and B does not "reduce the themes to these two". More themes may be mentioned, if they are dealt with in the Themes section and supported by adequate refs. Again, this is what I meant when I said that there is nothing to stop anybody from making further edits. You say it was "unnecessary" to mention these two themes, but it's not "necessary" to mention anything. It is, however, appropriate to mention them when they are major plot elements and dealt with in the Themes section. It might be useful if you could say what themes you feel are important and are being left out, because I can't guess what they are, and saying only that "the entire setting of this plot revolves around the central characters" doesn't really clarify it for me. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and consensus re: LGBT. I think we're on a circular mode of debate, however, regarding themes (which was simply one chosen aspect for discussion). To argue appropriateness vs necessity is the epitome of assembling a strong lede section; and certainly should be the guidelines on how to write a good article on WP; but that is a separate discussion than what I am challenging (but it is a timeless conversation). My initial challenge (to get us back on track) was that the Themes addition was introduced and placed before what was already written in the lede as a short, yet tone changing, description of the film that readers see first and foremost. "Themes addressed are Fascism" (and the soon-to-be removed: LGBT) is not only reducing the story to one facet; but it also welcomes editors to undue weight the lede with what they consider essential themes (that are more prevalent than the fascist theme in the references provided): gender roles, masculinity, type casting, role reversal, oppression, inner resistance, feminine responsibilities, et al -- it's endless. All of these could be linked to WP articles; and would cause distraction at first sight, when the article itself already deals in detail with these themes -- especially fascism. Maineartists (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The feeling I'm getting from you is that you prefer to think of it as a simple film about a conversation between a simple woman and a simple man, and it spoils your enjoyment of it to state that it addresses social and political issues. But of course it addresses these issues, and of course the article should state this up front. From beginning to end we see fascist uniforms, fascist salutes, photos of Il Duce, quotes from Il Duce, and we are listening to an unending radio commentary on a major fascist event. Did you not get that that's what "a special day" means? Why on earth would the article not say that fascism is one of the major themes? And the film begins with a man about to kill himself, and climaxes with the revelation that it was because of the way he was treated by his employers, the party and the police on account of his sexual orientation. Why would the article not say that that is a major theme? You talked before of "reducing the themes to these two", but now you seem to be saying that stating any theme in the lead is adding "undue weight", and the more themes you add the more "undue weight" it becomes. That would be nonsense. The lead of any article is supposed to summarise the article body; the lead of an article on a film should outline the major themes of the film, as discussed in the Themes section, where the article has one (as this article has). This isn't a cozy film about a man and a woman thrown together by circumstance – read this if you don't believe me – and the "tone" of the article shouldn't suggest that it is. Incidentally, I notice that the bit about the "long take" at the beginning of the film was removed during those edits, presumably because it was unsourced. It could usefully be re-added, citing the review I linked to there. Scolaire (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I wholly endorse Scolaire's comments. It's personal opinion to believe the film is just about "a man and a woman" and that this should be pushed. Moreover, "include" in the lede is not exclusive. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Scolaire Thank you for your input and comments; but please do not infer preference of thoughts or spoils of enjoyment. You could not be further from the truth. Your style in approach via questioning seems oddly familiar with the original editor. I have not touched this article for these very reasons: discussion. Yet for some reason, rather than discuss the issues at hand and defend them properly, there seems to be a return of justification to corral unsaid words into an argument that is non-existent. It is not my personal opinion that this film is just about a man and a woman; and the haste to push is unnecessary. Likewise, it would be complete nonsense to state that any theme in the lede is adding "undue weight". Which of course is why I never said it. It is not nonsense in a lede that was light on summary to begin with to state that by trying to cherry pick what one editor believes to be the most important theme(s) to include (which now only seems to be fascism). Since this discussion is getting OT each time a reply is added, the debate is not about fascism in this film: it is solely about what themes should be included in the lede (which my original challenge was the "LGBT" link) -- plain and simple. Would you and Mr. Ribbet32 please complete the following so that we can just move on?
• Themes addressed in this film are:

Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I was reduced to speculating about your views and your motivation because you have consistently failed to say what you think the themes are or what you want the lead to say. It's impossible to discuss improving the article with you when every time I try to address your concerns you tell me I'm off-topic. Answering your question is easy: I think it should say "Themes addressed include fascism and the Mussolini government's treatment of homosexuals." I'm guessing that Ribbet32 would go with that too. Now why don't you stop playing games and tell us what you want it to say? Scolaire (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted. My apologies, but I never wanted themes in the lede and your pressing the issue has made it seem as though I did; which is false. I want a resolution. There are no games here, just a discussion -- and unwelcomed hostility, obviously. I'm trying to be diplomatic. You joined as a 3rd party opinion. What is your dog in this fight; and what is your reasoning for being so agitated? You have gone very quickly from a third party objective to a disgruntled editor. You have stated what you feel is adequate for the lede; which is merely a mirrored inclusion of what was there before. Thank you for your input. As I see it, there is nothing else to be said on the matter. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I came across as hostile. I will admit to feeling frustrated: I felt that I had clearly explained why the edits in question were good edits, and that you simply weren't hearing what I was saying. I came as a neutral party and found myself, as you diplomatically put it, picking a dog in your fight. That can happen when a third opinion is requested. Third opinion is different from mediation in that respect. I agree there's no more to be said. I'll do the edit we agreed to and leave it at that. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

Ribbet32 Sorry to "ping" you; but in light of your on-going 3rd Opinion listed below regarding the LGBT challenge within the lede, I thought I would simply address the other few edits I thought you and I could discuss before reversion (or not). I saw that you were/are open to friendly suggestion since you did indeed change the verbiage regarding the sentence: "Themes addressed in the film ..." -- "perceived" -- "overworked/exhausted" and also the change on your own talk page: "with significant edits". It's never easy when an editor simply comes in and blankly states: I'm going to revert -- but you seem to be willing; so I hope we can come to an agreement rather than draw this out. For the record: there was never an intent to humiliate you in any way. Just so we're clear. I hope you know that.

• I did a bit more research since the two copies I own have different translations. One translates the dance sequence as: "What are we dancing to ... [answer: a rhumba] -- while the other translates to: "What are we dancing? (doing) ... answer: a [the] rhumba. The online references tend to lean more to your inclusion, so lets stick with that (yours).
• You asked once: whose opinion it was that Antionetta was sentimental ... the editor who placed it there. In one breath, it seems that personal opinion means absolutely nothing; yet in another, it is everything. It cannot work both ways. Especially in a section that does not warrant references. The definition is: feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia. I happen to agree with the assessment for this character. To have removed it was a personal opinion on your part; which was challenged. That's all. She has been certainly described as overworked, even bored. Naive is fair to say. But there is another layer to her that is now missing that should not have been removed.
• The LGBT link simply has to go. I'm sorry. The term is not in keeping with 1938 fascist Italy. We need to find a better linked page that further explains this time than a simple one-line reference under history on its extensive page. We can both look for this; or welcome other editors to do -- but at least we know what is needed and the original intent you were seeking: which I agree with 100%.
• Indicate vs State. My only qualm with these terms is that one (indicating) is normally a verb that is an action associated with suggestive physicality and the other (state) is one that definitely presents in writing or speech. Their definitions use these descriptions: suggestively vs definitively. The latter is more appropriate that in fascist Italy they would most definitively "State" in writing, rather than "suggestively" Indicate.
• "... who has shown ..." This was merely a question of relaying the action within the movie. Could you point out exactly in the film where this character does this? otherwise, it should say: "Antonietta confides in him her troubles with her arrogant and unfaithful husband, who she says has shown a preference for [an] educated women." (Did you mean: an educated woman? or educated women?)
• Now. The "neighbour/neighbor" debate. This one we will have to take to an expert board on the matter. My argument is: simply because a film is co-produced in Canada, doesn't mean the spelling of "neighbor" on WP should be Canadian. Otherwise, "labour" should be the same. However, you have a different understanding of this issue. Would you like to take this to the appropriate experts? or should I?

Thanks for taking a moment to breath and work with me here. I appreciate it. No need for corners -- we're in this together. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on my userpage; it references other articles where I am not the sole author; any supposed problems with it are appropriately raised on my user talk, not an article talk page. It's things like that that made me seriously question if you are trolling (calling the mediator a "disgruntled editor" is the latest example). That said, go ahead an re-add "sentimental" if that bothers you. And I added the source talking about Nunzio Filogamo- there was no mention of him previously- it is far closer to saying this was suggested than stated. "Stated" was an early attempt to reword the source to avoid a copyvio, but "indicating" is better representative of the source. Your suggestion about the educated woman is fine. IMO, believing American spelling is automatically the "correct" spelling is the perfect example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. This is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. Ribbet32 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that this was posted yesterday evening above my first post, so I've moved it down to the bottom. It might explain why Maineartists and I appeared to be at cross-purposes. The 3O request was for an opinion on the entire dispute, which I gave and subsequently defended. Maineartists now appears to be saying that I was only being asked to "referee" on the "Themes addressed" sentence and then I could be dismissed. As far as I'm concerned, the whole debate over Ribbet's edits has been had and is now stale. The edits are done and they are not being undone. If Maineartists wants to suggest a further edit to, for instance, the sentence on the husband's preference for a woman with education, let him do so, instead of perpetuating this laundry list of trivial things that he thinks should not have been done. On the "neighbo(u)rs" question, I'm inclined to go with MOS:RETAIN, which says to use whichever was in the article originally. As I understand it, that would be "neighbor". Scolaire (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Themes vs. Production

Scolaire Thanks for pointing out that my inclusion in the lede regarding "type-casting" was not actually in the film. Taking your lead, I have moved the reasoning found within the Themes section to Production -- which is where it belongs within the article. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the logic in that. Scolaire (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)