Talk:No Other Woman (1933 film)

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 Wikipedia 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)

I have corrected my name in your comment above, since you seem to have written it incorrectly. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:07, 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)

This is unsourced trivia, and unrelated to this film. Also, please respect WP:BRD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Robsinden: It is not "unsourced trivia" that you reverted. It was referenced and used contextually, so it should not be dismissed so readily. A better approach is to have additional casting information so there is a reasonable passage to read instead of an isolated note. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sorry, not unsourced trivia. But trivia nonetheless, and irrelevant to this particular film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Grouchy Realist. Please fix your signature per WP:SIGPROB. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Lugnuts, take a hike. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. Your signature does need changing. Please fix this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 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!! BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIGPROB says: "Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] or [[User:Example|Nickname]]) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g. in the form [[User:Example|User:Example]]/Nickname." Your signature does need to be changed, and you're being very, very far from civil with Lugnuts. He's not doing anything wrong, he's just following guidelines. You, however, are not, seeing as calling him a "cuntry" is unquestionably a personal attack, which I will be reporting promptly. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

..."can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers)": I totally agree. So basically if someone's not a newcomer... they're just easily confused. I wonder which one it is. "lol", etc. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Corvoe, Beyond My Ken sometimes abbreviates his name as "BMK". In his defense, his signature isn't entirely misleading. Epicgenius (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in this lack of cordiality all around. I am not seeing editors "behave politely, calmly and reasonably" even in the face of others not behaving the same way. First of all, Beyond My Ken has overhauled the article as seen here, and that effort should be recognized. There was no real "status quo" beforehand considering how underdeveloped the article was. I do not consider the cast note to be ruinous to the article, and to call it "trivia" is to be dismissive preemptively. The reference for that note, seen here, states, "When audiences think of Irene Dunne, it is usually in a screwball comedy opposite Cary Grant like The Awful Truth (1937) or as the scatter-brained mother of Life with Father (1947). But early in her film career, RKO Pictures put Dunne into several 'weepies' - melodramatic women's films which were the Lifetime Channel equivalent in the 1930s. A prime example of these was No Other Woman (1933)." The reference about the film makes this connection, so it is reasonable to include in this article. I would suggest rewording it to be more succinct, something like, "Though Irene Dunne is historically known for appearing in screwball comedies, she starred in melodramas early in her career, 'a prime example' being No Other Woman." It may be that its isolation makes it look like trivia, but instead of excising it entirely, we could boost this with additional casting information to go under the "Cast" section. Seriously. Stop being dicks to each other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This kind of information is relevant to the biography of the actress, but not relevant in the context of this film. If an actress known for dramatic roles was cast in a rare comedic role (or vice versa), then that has the potential to be notable in the context of a film article, but this is an early role for her, so she was not cast against type. Therefore this is just trivial information in the context of this film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be relevant in both places. There is not a distinct line separating content for an actor's article and for a film article. I don't see it as being "cast against type" but more of a retrospective mention. Dunne was ultimately known as a screwball comedy actor, but this is a kind of a historical highlight. Do you not think that there could be a larger passage added, especially with what I mention before and whatever else? This either/or back-and-forth is tiresome. If the content is insufficient, we should find a way to better it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I could see some argument for noting on her first screwball film that she was previously known for melodramas, but not for stating it the other way around. The historical context only becomes relevant later. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a way to put the note in additional context. This states, "No Other Woman is the weakest picture in this Dunne melodrama package. But as has already been demonstrated often, Irene still walks away with rave reviews." Then it quotes a passage from Variety. This plus the cast note would make up a reasonable starter paragraph in the "Cast" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

At WP:DISPUTE, the section "Follow the normal protocol" states, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text." Part of that quote links to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which falls under Wikipedia's editing policy and states a variety of ways to fix the problem that have to do with striving for improvement. Wholesale reverting is not conducive and did not need to be done here by multiple incoming parties. Even WP:DISPUTE#Discuss with the other party states, "Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority." Please keep these rules of conduct in mind in future disputes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect Erik, looking at the edit history, at least 4 editors found the passage to be irrelevant trivia, and thus not salvageable (or at least not worth salvaging). Ken had already reverted 4 times, a clear breach of WP:3RR when I got here, so of course his edit should have been reverted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point at all. Clarityfiend and Beyond My Ken reverted each other at first, within reason. There was a brief discussion as seen above, though with no indication of finding a different way to go about it, and a notice was posted at WT:FILM for a third opinion. Instead of outside editors coming to the discussion and adding their thoughts (and not touching the article at all because the content is not vandalism), it became tag-teaming in the course of edit warring. As I highlighted above, edit warring cannot continue parallel with discussion. Obviously, acceding is key, but many of us here are too proud to do that (to leave in content or to let someone else take it out). Ideally, I think editing the article could have stopped at BMK's last edit after Clarityfiend's, and no one should have touched it and instead make comments here, especially to fix the problem. I mean, this is not trivia like "Dunne liked her coffee black during this film's production" or whatever. If we can find a different way to use the information, great. If we form a consensus that it is useless in any capacity, then we would then cross that bridge of removing the content. Maybe the same thing would have happened, just later, maybe not. Obviously I am venting, but I really wish we would not be in such a collective rush to get messy like we have here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As I asked BMK, why this particular film? Why not all the other early Dunne melodramas? Should we do the same thing for Bogart? "Humphrey Bogart appeared in a number of gangster films like High Sierra early in his career, although he is probably best known for the romantic dramas he appeared in, such as Casablanca..." I agree with Rob Sinden. It might be worth pointing out when the pattern was broken, not in all the places it wasn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)