Talk:Love & Other Drugs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Singhsimranjit071294.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Not having seen the film, I don't know what the official, onscreen title is. I do know that someone with knowledge of it should address the difference between the article title, Love and Other Drugs, and the fact that the poster splashed right next to it reads, Love & Other Drugs. The discrepancy needs to be explained.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trade magazine Film Journal International gives the title with an ampersand: http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/esearch/e3i39b5c49ccd74a21f16923ef668a7fbc3 --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides who is a minor character?[edit]

This is my first "talk page" entry so please forgive any mistakes I make.

I have tried to list a name in the cast list. Bbb23 keeps editing it out saying its a minor character. I would like to know if he has seen the movie. The character is in several scenes and it's a talking role. I also don't understand why having more information about a cast is a bad thing. I like wikipedia because it provides info that might be hard to find elsewhere. If it's just about listing the obvious, please let me know. Nosmoking7 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just by bringing this issue to the Talk page, in my veiw, does you credit. I think you raise a good point, and, frankly, I don't know the answer. I was just using editorial judgment as to where the line should be drawn as to how many cast members to list in the body. For this particular actor and this particular role, I'm not sure of the answer. Anyway, I've started a discussion at the Film Project here. You never know how much a discussion will grab other editors, so it may get responses, or it may not. You are, of course, free to contribute.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Just popping in from the project page. First, a disclaimer - I haven't seen this film (I haven't seen most of the films on my watchlist for that matter). I'm also not an expert and am of the opinion that both strong guidelines AND flexibility are good for wikipedia. So that gives you an idea of where I'm coming from. I don't think (but could be wrong) that there is a hard and fast rule on this beyond the unspoken rule that we don't list extras unless they are cameos or are of plot importance (so unless Girl on Bike #4 is played by someone with name recognition or is in several plot critical scenes doing plot critical things we don't care). In this case, how big of a deal are Homeless Man's scenes? Does he give sage love advice that proves important to how the story shakes out or something? If the answer to that is yes I would say add him. Otherwise, my not!vote would be to leave him off, lest we accidentally encourage other editors to add Kid on Skateboard, and the like. If you see what I mean. Millahnna (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you guys are fast. Thanks. I guess I should also point out that I built the wikipedia page for this actor after seeing him in a broadway play as an exercise on how to use this site. So I have a bit of self interest here. But I'm also a big movie buff and often use Wikipedia to find answers to my questions about people I spot in movies. In many movies there can be quite significant scenes with actors who are not given names in the plot. So "homeless man" or "woman trapped in elevator" might be a role worth noting. Or it may not. Usually you have to see the film to know. "Name recognition" as a basis for listing is also an interesting concept. If you follow broadway you would probably know this actor. If you don't, you probably wouldn't. But I don't follow a lot of different subjects eg Bollywood films or British football so there are loads of famous people out there who's name's I don't recognize. (Bbb23..should I still be posting here or should I be on the other link you set up) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosmoking7 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nosmoking, if you want to discuss the broader concept of minor cast members, you should contribute to the topic at the project. If you want to continue to discuss the inclusion of the homeless man in this article, you should contribute here. Just so it's clear, based on the discussion here and at the project, I don't think we should include the homeless man. I don't think the actor's notability on Broadway is particularly relevant to this film and his role in this film. Are you okay with that now?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bbbb23. I will go with your judgement on this since you have way more experience on the wikipedia standard. I was just so proud of having all the links from the actor's page I built be supported within wikipedia. It guess we all get excited about our first time. I will instead link to the IMDB page for the movie where he is credited. Thanks for your input. Nosmoking7 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions on the Brian Hutchison article. First, read up on citation format. Your cites are unorthodox. Second, read up on encylopedic style. You don't want to say things in the body like "Read the full review here." Third, there's no point in listing his credits without anything more in the body - you're already listing them in the table. The body would be to have more information about them, not just entries. Fourth, you don't want bullets in the Personal life section, and try to avoid trivia like his name being misspelled - it's not worthy of inclusion in the article. Finally, where'd you get the picture from? It's not clear we are properly licensed to use it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit confusion, edit summaries, etc.[edit]

The edit summary reverting my last two edits reads: Reverted edits by 98.82.189.203 (talk) to last version by Ebyabe - unnecessary additions. Well, it's all a matter of opinion, I guess, but since Maggie's comments were how Jamie finds out about the drug, I thought the previous edit was rather incomplete. I'm reverting, since I thought that it was necessary to add these brief words. 98.82.189.203 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no basis for your using the adjective "deceptive", so change the title of this section. In addition, try to use edit summaries yourself explaining what you're doing. It's standard practice at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my section header. I had started writing here with a mistaken impression of what had transpired over the course of your edit and mine. I actually started writing an comment here that matched the header, but then, before I saved it, realized that I was wrong and I corrected my text, but didn't remember to correct the section header.
I do use edit summaries, when I think it's necessary. Obviously, if deletes an entire (non-vandalous) paragraph, an edit summary is necessary. Obviously, if all one does is correct the use of "a" to "an", it should not be necessary. In between there is an entire continuum of possibilities, and I felt my edit was close enough to the article change to make an edit summary unnecessary. Again, just a matter of opinion.98.82.189.203 (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology and the change in the section header. I've found it's always best to use an edit summary, even for a minor change, in which case the edit summary can be brief, like capitalization or grammar or punctuation or whatever is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right, but then again, if I'm too lazy to create an account I'm probably too lazy to do as you suggest. Happy trails! 98.82.189.203 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Love & Other Drugs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_%26_Other_Drugs&oldid=1208596942"