Talk:Lady Bird (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Vkottapiu, Laceyceruolo, Ariannagiannini.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception?[edit]

Do we want to add early reception for the movie from Tellurude or do we just wait until it's out in theatres?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Comment[edit]

The consensus is to remove the quote. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a quote from the film's distrubutor praising the director be in the release section? I have concerns that this is makes the article look like an advertisement, however an IP editor strongly opposes it's removal. --Deathawk (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it does not belong. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The chairman's quote is a biased quote, and while biased quotes can have a place (such as it being acceptable to quote a director responding to negative reviews), there is no suitable context for it here. It is simply a distributor playing up their purchase. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - I don't think it is particularly appropriate either, but more to the point I don't see why it is notable. A film reviewer or someone giving an award would be, but why is the distributor's chairman's opinion worthy of inclusion? -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Agree with what is said, the quote appears to be too bias. Also agree that the chairman saying this doesn't seem very notable, not like a review or something praising her.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Not appropriate as it is not a Neutral Point of View DrkBlueXG (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Cruft. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - I don't oppose a comment from a distributor on principal, but this particular case is very hyperbolic. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Production section[edit]

I really hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes by doing this, but I have restored an older version of the production section that I had worked on. Back in September I was working on the page when an IP editor began disputing my edits. I tried to work with them, although it became increasingly apparent that they were not open for collaborating. They've made plenty of edits over the ensuing months on this page, until the page was locked, for what I presume this IP's behavior. Given the circumstance I decided to restore my old version, as the IP address was the only person who objected to my edits. If someone has a problem with this action, they are free to revert this action. I am just trying to do what's right for this article. --Deathawk (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date, plot up top and Limited debut[edit]

Per Wiki rules on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, the infobox should only include the premiere and country of production (US). Also, while the plot has its own section in article, the entire article should be summarized up top, including synopsis and review summaries. These are laid out on the Wiki Film article template page, and any desires to go against the grain should be addressed here.

Also, the film’s limited debut resulted in the best theater average for a female director, not overall limited debut. It’s stated in the source. TropicAces (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

National Board of Review 189.209.30.179 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. There are three questions that need to be answered in most of these edit requests. What text in the article is not acceptable? What should it be changed to? What source will we use? You didn't answer any of these questions. CityOfSilver 05:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10?[edit]

Do we maybe want to start (or in a bit, when more lists come out), want to put a section for "top 10" lists in which Lady Bird appears? Like the NBR and the AFI and the other lists it's appeared on? It might tidy the awards section a bit.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversion and accusation[edit]

I have been twice reverted without explanation by TheOldJacobite – once without explanation and once on the basis that I am using "dubious logic". The only edits I made were minor stylistic changes entirely pursuant to MOS:DATE, MOS:COMMA, MOS:CURLY, and MOS:NBSP. Why is this, TheOldJacobite? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]