Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lauren Bacall on screen and stage/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 00:19, 24 September 2014 [1].

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage edit

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is a good example of her career, with proper lists and everything referenced appropriately. It's my first featured nomination, be gentle ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

  • This is quite close to being featured quality :). Just need to get rid of one New York Post ref. Also, if not including number of movies, shows, and plays she appeared in, may as well say she appeared in "many films, television shows, and plays" or say she had "an extensive career in films, television shows, and plays". Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blast! I thought I got rid of that NY Post ref. I'm on it! And I like the second one, so I'll go with that :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, just minor fixes, and include her roles for all the "stage" roles Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to look them up but some of her roles were nameless roles. Should I leave them blank? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nameless, Lady Lotus, just describe the type of character (i.e. office secretary, opera singer, nun, bartender, dancer) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok so I dug a little deeper and got all the names but one. And all I can find was she was a shy 17-year old, it was speaking part, but no name. I don't want to say what she is if I dont' know. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some searching myself, but found no names for her character either on Franlin Street. Before anything else, tell me this: what was this shy girl like? A pedestrian, student, townsperson, you name it: some more detail on her character. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well she was 17 so I'm guessing a student but I'm not sure. Not a whole lot of sources talked about her character just that is was her stage debut at 18. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm..... just say "unnamed teenager" or something..... as long as there are no blank fields for roles (please also take a look at A Star for Two), I support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding {n/a} to it? That way it's not blank...? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me if you can't find the name of a role or even a description of her character, good work :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90 edit

This is very close to featured quality. just a few minor points:

  • Since the release years for Applause and Woman of the Year are already stated, I don't think the years should be repeated for her Tony Wins for those plays.  Done
  • The Tree of Hands links to the novel, not the film.  Done
  • Ref no. 30 is not centered in the ref. column, like the others.  Done
  • Are her roles in A Star for Two and Franklin Street unknown? If so, it would be good to state that. (I see the previous reviewer has also commented on this)  Done; put "Unknown" for A Star for Two; and "Unnamed teenager" for Franklin Street.
  • Playbill is a magazine, right? So it should be in italics in the reference section.  Done -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support: Excellent job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Godot13 edit

Resolved comments from --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Nicely written prose, easy to read.
    • Thank you!
  • Alt text very thorough, external links appear fine (couldn't check ref links, tool error)

Reviewed the Filmography (will review TV and Stage tables tomorrow)

  • In 1999 (by release date) Diamonds comes before The Venice Project.  Done
  • A Conversation with Gregory Peck has internet-reported release dates listed ranging from 1998 to 2001, which is correct?  Done, it's actual inital release was 2000
  • Gone Dark (aka The Limit) appears to have a 28 Dec 2004 released date, not 2003.  Done
  • The sort by year function works, but not completely... In you run another sort, and then re-sort by year, the films return to the correct year, but in a different order (i.e., they are no longer in the initial chronological release order).
    • @Godot13: I honestly don't know how to fix that, this is the first time I've ever worked with sorting before, if you give me an example of how to do it, I can go in a fix it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Godot13 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’ve made a few changes which I think will be helpful (anything you disagree with get rid of)…
    • Added hidden key sorting for the dates (based on first screening, film festival or general public)
    • Moved a few slightly up or down in the list so the default is in the correct date order
    • If the available release date info does not contain the day, for sorting the day of the month is defaulted at the first.
    • There are a few that only have a year of release. I haven’t added any month or day and these may possibly be slightly out of order (they sort last within the correct year).
  • Perfect Gentlemen was a TV movie, should that be in Film (where it is now) or Television?

Please take a look at what I changed/added and let me know if you are okay with it and/or if you have any questions.--Godot13 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you so much for doing all of that with the years! :) I leave TV films in the television section just because they were made for tv regardless of being a film. Which actually now that I just looked at it, there was one in the tv and in the film section, so I removed the one from the film section. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

  • Support – A peer reviewer, I was happy with the responses there and I feel the article has only grown in quality since. Nice job! Cassiantotalk 23:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cowlibob edit

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, great effort on this list. Mainly some sourcing issues.
  • Main pic could be further described as Bacall in promo photo, unknown date.  Done
  • WSJ source is behind a paywall at least for me. Consider alternative?
It is. However if there is a reliable source (which you found) which isn't behind a paywall, we should go for that one. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy 85th birthday source is a TCM blog by a "Shari Lee". Is this person reliable?  Done as in replaced
  • Probably could find a better source than Yahoo! blog for Chicago Hope and Yahoo! source for Get Bruce could also be replaced.  Done
  • What makes Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention, The Wire.com, Broadway World and Hamptons reliable? Cowlibob (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]
    • Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention was honestly the only (what look decent enough) source I could find to reference Patterns, but I've since deleted it since it was a major role in her career, it was just a bypasser. I wouldn't say the Wire wasn't reliable, it seems to be reliable enough. I've replaced the other refs. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could use this one for Get Bruce, [[2]]. I think laurenbacall.com looks like a fan site and not official. Here's an alternate for Mr. Broadway, [[3]]. Cowlibob (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry that I am JUST now getting to these but thank you so much for your input! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Ping to let you know that I've made additional comments above. Cowlibob (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All good now. Great job. Cowlibob (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 and We hope edit

  • Delegate's comment - I'm not too sure on the acceptability of some of these images. Promotional stills, though rarely copyrighted, were sometimes still given notices. Short of actually being able to see the rear of the page (and thus check for notices) we can't be sure either way. I'm putting this on hold until all of the images can be thoroughly vetted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crisco 1492: do you know which images of Bacall in commons are already vetted and can be used appropriately? I would hate to see this put on hold if I can easily just swap out images. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We just need what, at FAC, is called an image review. I'd generally be able to do it, but RL is fairly busy right now. I can tell you, however, that We hope is really good at this, and could probably help you find more than you need. (BTW, the main image here is an example of the type I'm concerned of; we lost an FP of Katherine Hepburn because it didn't have the back). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all sure about the headshot as there's no information about when it was done nor where it came from. I can try to find a copy of it if possible and we might be able to fill in the blanks. I'll take a hard look through Commons at the Bacall photos today and nominate any that are questionable for deletion review there. The rest look exactly like what they are, screenshots from movie trailers, and shouldn't be a problem. I can also have a look through various places for more photos of her that might work and upload them at Commons. We hope (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, We hope. I'm concerned about blanket rationales for trailers though, so if someone who's not on a maximum 80kb/s line (shared by three laptops) can verify those... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way through the trailers now. IMDB To Have and Have Not. Unfortunately for File:Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not Trailer 2.jpg, there's a copyright notice at 2:33 of the 2:47 trailer. page 165 shows the film was renewed. We hope (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dark passage trailer bacall.JPG. IMDB-copyright notice at 2:06 of 2:11 trailer. Copyright of film renewed page 159. We hope (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question though: are these renewals for the trailers, or the movies? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go back into the Den of the Deep and haul out the original registrations. Meantime-

File:Lauren Bacall in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer 1.jpg IMDB. There's no notice on the trailer at IMDB, but the trailer there is is black and white; this screenshot and the others taken from the film are all in color. The film itself was renewed and colorized at some point. There was a situation like this with some Three Stooges shorts at Commmons. They were colorized and that case, Columbia let the non-colorized version lapse into PD while taking a new registration on the colorized ones. There, the older clips were PD but not the color ones. Since the trailer at IMDB is in b&w and not marked, could the screenshots be replaced with ones from the PD b&w trailer? We hope (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Type of Work: Motion Picture
  • Registration Number / Date: RE0000103015 / 1981-10-13
  • Renewal registration for: LP0000003269 / 1953-11-04
  • Title: How to marry a millionaire.
  • Copyright Claimant: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (PWH)

TCM has another trailer-this one in color-they say is the original. I viewed that one also and saw no copyright notations on it either. We hope (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For To Have and Have Not page 13. Copyright L 13056 on January 20, 1945-so it appears this wasn't filed until after the film had premiered. We hope (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Dark Passage page 48 Copyright LP1232 on September 27, 1947. And it looks like this went public before it was filed also. We hope (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what does that mean for the images you have already gone over? Which ones are ok to use? Does that mean that File:Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart in To Have and Have Not Trailer 2.jpg needs to be removed? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to confirm that the two earlier films were available to the public before they were copyrighted. October 12, 1944. To Have and Have Not showing at a New York Theater. September 25, 1947 Dark Passage showing at a Connecticut theater 2 days before copyright was filed. I'd say this means they're in the public domain because we have proof that the film was "published" before copyright was filed. We hope (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent! Thank you so much. Only possible issue is the publicity shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note all of this on the Commons files so nobody "trips" over what we discovered. Can do the remaining movie trailer there also because I watched that too and no copyright notice. If you think you can do something with this, I checked the renewals for 1974 and 1975--not renewed. Lantern has some copies of the magazine, but unfortunately not (yet) including 1947. All the copies I found of the publicity photo didn't have any information about where the photo came from or when. We hope (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant. What do you think, Lady Lotus? Colour magazine cover? One of the other images of Becall? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am now asking about what the screenshot licenses should be changed to. I think it's an "improper notice" tag. Will be changing them and adding the links re: original registration and news clippings when I find out about the licensing. We hope (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use whatever images I am able to use, it's hard to not like a photo a Bacall lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. Just work it in, and we're pretty much golden except for that one trailer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I start earning my money. :) The How to Marry a Millionaire trailer was able to be seen at TCM (link above) and there's no copyright message. The one in black and white at IMDB has none either. Both have some different material in them; no idea why there's a b&w and color one. Have included the TCM link to all screen shots from "Millionaire", but have not yet heard what the licenses for the 2 older ones should be changed to. We hope (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the pre-1976 law, copyright began upon publication, provided that the appropriate notice was included. A work that was not published could be registered and that would also begin the copyright. Although there were certain benefits to registration, it was not required for initial copyright (the first 28 years), so the fact that the registrations in this case were after publication is irrelevant. see Copyright Basics, page 6 . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jim. So far, I can replace the To Have and Have Not screenshot with one published in an old movie magazine and will look for one for Dark Passage. We hope (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bogart and Bacall To Have and Have Not.jpg This can replace the To Have and Have Not screenshot. We hope (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]
File:Bacall and Bogart Dark Passage.jpg This can be used for Dark Passage. We hope (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done thank you so much! what about the image from "Millionaire", was that ok? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the trailer and there's no copyright marks. Last night, I added the link where it can be viewed to all screenshots from the film, so that should be good to go. We hope (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See if you like either of these File:Lauren Bacall Gary Cooper Bright Leaf.jpg or File:Lauren Bacall 1945.jpg to replace the publicity photo. I had no luck finding out where it came from or when. We hope (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ew I love the 1945 one, I just now replaced it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about File:Lauren Bacall - YankArmyWeekly detail.jpg ? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's from an US Army publication--all those who produced the magazine were servicemen, so the license is right, and the AFRS is OK also because that was a US government entity. I think you're good to go! :) Nice that someone's going to be happy because I have to send all those older screenshots to deletion review and that's probably going to make some people unhappy. We hope (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I greatly appreciate all your help! And they'll just have to be unhappy, that's what happens when you upload something with a bad license. Thank you again :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, let's promote this! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Lauren_Bacall_on_screen_and_stage/archive1&oldid=1089080941"