Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Hey, Lugnuts, take a hike. ] (]) 09:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::Hey, Lugnuts, take a hike. ] (]) 09:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Please be ]. Your signature does need changing. Please fix this. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Please be ]. Your signature does need changing. Please fix this. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Actually, it doesn't need changing, it's just peachy as it is, for the time being, since that's the way I feel. It links to my user page, and talk page, as required, so I think you should go ... well, let's see, how do I put this in a way that's socially acceptable, yet won't be be misunderstood by folks, who are, you know, like yourself? ... Yes, I have it -- Go peel a banana!! ] (]) 10:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
Melodrama note
Beyond Your My Ken, the fact that Dunne made melodramas is trivial. This is shown by the fact that none of the other early films of this type that she made (that I checked on) comment on it. Do you plan to include this in all of those other films? Should we also mention in all of Bogart's early films that he played gangsters a lot? That Astaire had lots of musicals? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not trivial at all, Clarityfiend. Dunne is best known to most contemporary viewers for a certain type of role (screwball comedies), and yet here she is doing a different kind of role, in a "weeper" melodrama. That's of interest to our readers, and was interesting enough to the people at TCM to comment about it -- and I assure you that they know more about old movies than I do, and certainly more than you do. As to whether I plan to include it in all Irene Dunne-melodrama articles ... well, if I happen to edit them, I probably would insert it, because it's just as true for them as is it for this film. (That none of the articles comment on it now is in itself a worthless observation, since Misplaced Pages is constantly evolving, and I have no idea what state those articles are in. Did you improve those articles while you were there, or did you just breeze by in order to gather material for your indictment against me?) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This simply is too tenuously related to the film to belong here IMO. Since it's obvious that we don't agree, I'm going to ask at the film project for third opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"Tenuously related"? WTF are you talking about? The film is a melodrama. The note is about the place of melodramas in Dunne's career. That's not "tenuous", that's a direct relationship. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
On a general note, why would you think that an observation such as the one about Dunne and melodrama, or the one you mentioned, about Bogart and gangsters, wouldn't be pertinent to appear in a number of film articles? We are an encyclopedia, each article must, to a certain extent, stand on its own. We cannot be continuously telling the reader to go to another article, we should present them with important and pertinent facts in each article. If that means that a half-dozen articles says that Bogie played gangsters before he became a matinee idol, or that Dunne was placed in melodramas before she made her mark in screwball comedies, so be it. We're not here to be efficient, we're here to be informative, and if that means repeating the same information across a number of articles, that's what we do. We don't assume that the reader knows about Bogart's or Dunne's career arc, we tell them that, and not just in their bios. We give the pertinent and important facts wherever and whenever they're needed. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't need changing, it's just peachy as it is, for the time being, since that's the way I feel. It links to my user page, and talk page, as required, so I think you should go ... well, let's see, how do I put this in a way that's socially acceptable, yet won't be be misunderstood by folks, who are, you know, like yourself? ... Yes, I have it -- Go peel a banana!! BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
