Talk:Entertaining Mr Sloane

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Entertaining Mr Sloane article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Stub[edit]

I came to this article hoping to find out what this play is ABOUT, as it is currently playing off Broadway starring Alec Baldwin. This article seems stubby. Pacian 21:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

play/film[edit]

The page seems to be for the play.... would it make more sense to create a separate, linked one for the film? I'll put an infobox here int he meantime as it's next on my list to do, but would appreciate opinions on this ^^ thankyouplease :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I agree with the proposed split. Madder 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Entertaining-mr-sloane-poster-1970.jpg[edit]

Image:Entertaining-mr-sloane-poster-1970.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 07:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. v Mr[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There doesn't seem to be enough consensus for this move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

posted from: User talk:DionysosProteus#Entertaining Mr Sloane:

hello. since i'm sure you are aware of the rules of grammar and punctuation and requiring the use of a period with abbreviations, and wpmos style guides for the same, i'm a bit taken back by the enthusiasm with which you have made changes to the contrary without consensus, discussion, or one solid source to buttress your argument. please advise. --emerson7 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide whether you wish to discuss either on the talk page or on user page, as posting to both is tiresome and redundant. The source, as detailed in the edit history, is every published edition of the play and all critical discussions of it. Mr Sloane is the correct form observed in all of the critical literature. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tiresome or not, it is customary to post a copy of discussions centrally to enable others to follow the discourse. regarding the matter at hand....while your vague allusions are interesting, they hardly rise to the level of valid citations. in any case, my reading of the matter is that the abbreviation used without the requisite period is a stylistic typeset rending in the artwork, it is not bibliographic. using the established policies and conventions used for the article Toys "R" Us as an instructive model, Mr Sloane is incorrect --emerson7 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's only necessary to conduct it on the article's talk page. You might try referring to some critical literature on the play to resolve your confusion about the correct form for its title. Any of the ISBNs of the specific editions in the list of suggestions that you refer to as "vague allusions" will guide to a relevant use. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry....don't mean to be snippy, but you have yet to offer any reason to go off-book on this issue in support of your view. --emerson7 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As given in some detail above, all critical references and all published editions give the title as Entertaining Mr Sloane not Entertaining Mr. Sloane. There is no question about "going off book"; rather, the article ought to reflect the correct rendering, as given in all published material. Its spelling for copyright purposes is also Mr Sloane, not Mr. Sloane. In how many different ways do you want that explaining? The reasoning is quite clear. Consult any one of the numerous sources offered. DionysosProteus (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase 'all critical references' has no meaning whatsoever. Mr. Sloane is used in the databases: here, and here, and here, and is also used in the bibliographic record: here. if you can somehow convince me each of these are all incorrect, and your view is somehow superior to policy and convention, i'll gladly yield. --emerson7 13:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it, precisely, that you find so difficult to understand? I've provided you with a long list of critical literature. Consult any one of them. Then go look at any and all of the published editions. All of those give the title in the form Mr Sloane not Mr. Sloane. Then go check with the holder of the performance rights and copyright. You will find that all of those sources agree on the correct form for the title. If you are not being disingenuous in your willingness to be corrected, then consult any of the many specific titles I have provided. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hey, edit war soldiers...please cut it out and try to focus on ACCURRACY! I'm no Wikigenius, but perhaps one could check on the ISBN and find out how it's spelled on its Copyright. It seems logical that that is the closest to fact and accurracy. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see several refs to "Mr." by Emerson. I see no refs to "Mr" or the long list of critical literature that DP mentions. Could some of the long list be provided here, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what you are referring to. Where are the several refs to Mr.? The long list of critical literature appears on the article page, under sources. Take a look at any of those. DionysosProteus (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the links that Emerson posted above: here, here, here, here all of which say "Mr.". I checked some of the ones under sources; [1] says "Mr." The 1970 poster says "Mr." (the main one doesn't, but is in caps) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those resources are the same: imdb.com, and one other, worldcat.com, uses imdb as its resource. Please do not try to misconstrue references to look more reliable than they are. you've only pointed out two references, not four. 207.237.228.54 (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which source, exactly, uses Mr.? The performance rights, copyright and all of the critical literature doesn't. It looks like worldcat have "corrected" to the incorrect form. The links you have provided to the published edition do not accurately represent the form that those published editions use. Take a look at an actual book. Both the play itself and all of the critical literature on it. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which source, exactly, uses Mr. All of the links I've posted do. So the situation is that all available online references say "Mr.". Your assertion taht It looks like worldcat have "corrected" to the incorrect form is nothing but your assertion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I've been pretty patient with these misinformed comments. It's not just an assertion on my part. It's there in the printed texts. All of them. Go take a look at one. Then you may be able to express an informed opinion, instead of this nonsense. I've offered plenty of places for you to look. I know that Worldcat have "corrected" because I've got physical copies of the plays and the criticism in front of me; it is clear that worldcat have assumed they knew better than the author, the publisher, the copyright holder and the critics. So I repeat, once again, Go take a look at an actual book. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disruptive editing[edit]

Emerson7, you are adding incorrect material to this article and removing information that ought to be in it. Either justify with sources your claim that the play is a farce and indicate why the information you are removing ought not to be there or else stop this disruptive editing. DionysosProteus (talk)

no, not disruptive....corrective--removing non-standard formatting. as for the delightfully ironic genre, i submit the following:
Farce

wikipedia: ...a comedy written for the stage or film which aims to entertain the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations....
tfd: A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.
wiktionary: A style of humor marked by broad improbabilities with little regard to regularity or method; compare sarcasm

--emerson7 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting that designating this play as a farce is your own original research? While the boldness of such a unique perspective on the play may be applauded by some, unfortunately mainstream critical opinion does not agree with you. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not a farce except in the most stretched definition of the term. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson7, again you have added in factual inaccuracies and removed relevant information. There is nothing in the infobox guidelines to justify the removal and your additions have no supporting evidence. I've reported you to the 3RR violators page. Please cease your disruptive editing and go consult a book on the play to clear up your misunderstandings. There are plenty of suggestions in the sources section. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film image[edit]

The image of a film poster has no place in an article about a play, so I'm removing it. I trust this will not lead to another edit war. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Productions[edit]

I kept all the information re: productions of the play but put it in prose form, which I believe is preferable, rather than listing them. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot content[edit]

I significantly rewrote the plot section, as many key points were missing namely Kemp's blindness, most of act 2, hints of Ed's sexual orientation (e.g. women being 'crude') et al. It has been transposed into a more linear fashion separating each respective act. Slippycup (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]