Talk:Love's Labour's Lost (film)

Box office

I don't know if you can really call this film a "box office disaster" - you sort of have to have a film with a reasonable hope of moneymaking in order for it to be rightly called a "box office disaster." "Disappointment" is a much better word, because it just didn't open anywhere due to unenthusiastic reviews, hence didn't make much money.

Well I saw it and it was bloody awful. If I print that somewhere can we cite it?CaraPolkaDots (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LovesLaboursLost poster.jpg

Image:LovesLaboursLost poster.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 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Undone Edits - First Feature Film

The user @Crunklebank altered the information about this film being the first Feature Film adaptation of this play. I checked IMDB and there are no other significant films at all, much less any which predate Branaugh's adaptation. There are some filmed stage plays and some small BBC-esque productions, that's it. None of those qualify as a "Feature Film," i.e. a movie shot and marketed for major cinema release. I did roll the page back to the previous edit, because the few other edits made by this user, I didn't see a specific explanation for, nor did they serve any practical purpose that I can see. The language isn't any clearer in the edits, and it was perfectly reasonable to have mention of a thematic similarity between this and another of Shakespeare's works, when explaining that the staging of the play is 'played down' in this adaptation. CleverTitania (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed two instances of unsourced Original Research (“The first feature film…” etc. “And “rather like that of the rude mechanicals…” etc.). If you like the content, if you think it’s true, and if you want it to stay in the article — you should find a source that will support the content. See WP:OR. Crunklebank (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't identify either edit as removing unsourced info or original research. If you had done so, I would've handled such edits differently (I'd also pay particularly note of the 2nd paragraph in WP:OR, and note that both details under discussion were already verifiable and neither was likely to be challenged beyond the exact wording). In fact, your edit note saying that there was IMDB record of an earlier feature film was itself (incorrect) original research. You also didn't take the entire sentence out, about ways the film curtailed the ending play, which was the actual original research, you just took out the parenthetical.

Secondly, best practice is: when original research is added to an existing article, you undo it until the editor adds valid citations - but when the information has been on the page for years (both details were already in place when I last edited the page in 2018) you check to see if sources can easily be found and add them yourself, before you just delete the information. This situation is a perfect example of why that is considered best-practice, because it took me less than 5 minutes to find multiple sources for both of those details.

Though admittedly I'd rather have found one source for the whole 'curtailed' line, rather than one that pointed to the Pageant of the Worthies and one mentioning similarities in the rude mechanicals. I did pull the 'pretentions' piece out, because it's a pretty subjective description. Also, before anyone shouts "blogs," look at the about pages for both websites that I cited - Eric Minton is a legit journalist and built his site to be authoritative and fact-based, while Shaltz has professionally written Shakespeare analyses for decades. They're privately managed websites, but far from being personal blogs. CleverTitania (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The two citations you’ve added (by Justin Shaltz, and Eric Minton)n are both “self published sources” (See: the WP:RSSELF section under WP:QUESTIONABLE). Like blogs, they are websites posted and created by one person that show no indication of any staff or editorial oversight. They are not considered “reliable sources” and should not be used in Wikipedia. They also don’t seem to have anything to do with either of the two the examples of "Original Research" that I have already pointed out, and for which you claim to have found "multiple sources". Crunklebank (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

With no objection to what I said (just above) I removed the two “self published sources” discussed. Plot sections don't always need sources -- since the script or text is usually considered the source.Crunklebank (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)