Talk:Monty Woolley

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What did he teach at Yale?? Sussmanbern (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay?

One of the categories at the bottom of the page is Gay actors from the United States, yet the article never states that he was gay. If he was, why is that not included in the article? If it is unverifiable, why include the link? Nightkey (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's implied in the Cole Porter discussion, but not stated. So it be gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Woolley was well-known as gay. The book given as a reference explicitly says he's gay. Someone has bowdlerized this article, removing the words "gay" and "homosexual" and putting in G-rated euphemisms, possibly in the mistaken assumption that Wikipedia is censored.

This is an annoying trend on Wikipedia, although not as annoying as removing references in an attempt to whitewash history (oh no, he can't be gay, he wasn't evil!) --NellieBly (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As of now, the original problem remains. He's still in a gay cetegory, yet there's nothing in the article to support that. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If he was well known as gay, what's the problem with saying that in the article? It's not enough to have a source that has this information about him buried on page 367 or wherever. The fact of his gayness must be explicitly mentioned in our article, to justify an LGBT category. In the absence of that, I'm removing the gay categories. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Lexein (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Girl of the Golden West

The link is to the opera, not a motion picture. Perhaps the link should be broken. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Caption

I don't believe the "sexy" caption is appropriate for this article, despite the reference attached. IMO, the opinion of one unnamed magazine writer doesn't carry a lot of weight. I am canvassing WP:FILM contributors now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If it is an easily sourced fact that he was widely considered as such, I'd have no problem with it. As it stands now, such a statement might run into WP:NPOV and WP:V issues. It has been removed. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

End edit warring

It's poorthe worst, most heinous grammar crime to end a sentence with a preposition ("perform in.") Further, to end the tragic incidentedit war over grammar and since the source says "role in Hollywood" not "play", I've quoted this snippet from Cerf's 1944 book. This matches the 1944 print copy, and the 1959, pg 416, exactly. Paraphrasing is difficult, and sometimes is not worth the effort. I've added a link to this portion of the quote to citation #2. --Lexein (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your grammatical thinking is something up with which I should not put -- adding the direct quote is a good solution. BTW, don't throw accusations of "edit warring" around so casually, some people might get pissed off. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

YOh, that grammatical thinking is indeed that up with which should indeed be put, for it is not merely my own thinking, but others', see Preposition stranding. I was on about WP:BRD and WP:3RR, not intending accusation, but I see what you mean, at. --Lexein (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but, as the Churchillian quote which I deliberately mangled shows quite nicely, people tend to carry it to absurd extremes. In this instance, you have nicely skirted the issue by providing the quote, but in actuality, the sentence as it was written was quite acceptable English, and not in need of being rescued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, then, I say not in an encyclopedia, especially where rephrasing without awkwardness is possible. The waffling in this Chicago Manual of Style entry notwithstanding, it ends by asserting that to end with a prep is preferred only when the alternative is awkward. Note that casual, conversational and idiomatic usage doesn't bother me at all, from. --Lexein (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even in an encyclopedia, friend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. Your opinion notwithstanding, good luck finding a reputable language usage reference which approves of preposition stranding in formal usage where rephrasing would be unawkward, exactly as stated in Chicago, above. --Lexein (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Source about radio, alt stage name

• Magnificent Montague. Digital Deli Too. Includes context of Woolley's getting his own show, and an Oakland Tribune article. It was here that I noticed his name variation "Monte Woolley", then "E.M. Woolley" via http://IBDB.com

--Lexein (talk)

Sources

• Extensive bio w/ sources: Billy J. Harbin (December 15, 1998). "Monty Woolley - The Public and Private Man from Saratoga Springs". In Robert A. Schanke and Kimberley Bell Marra (ed.). Passing Performances: Queer Readings of Leading Players in American Theater History. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0472066810. {{cite book}}: Text "pages-262-279" ignored (help)
• Cecil Michener Smith, Glenn Litton (1987). Musical comedy in America. Routledge. p. 159. ISBN 978-0878305643.

--Lexein (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

just wondering about wikipedia policy. is it better to have a free image of a deceased actor even if its not as themselves but in a role, or a non free image of the actor in real life not playing a role? Bouket (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is Wikipedia policy -- as interpreted by the editors who police that area -- that any free image trumps any non-free image, quality or context nothwithstanding. I've seen the worst low-quality free images replace much better non-free images, and there's nothing to be done about it. Quality or contextual appropriateness simply doesn't enter into the equation, since WP:NFC hard-liners will delete any non-free image if a free one (no matter how piss-poor) is available.

That's not the way it should be, reasonable evaluations of quality and context should be allowed, but they are not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. if you know how to change policy i will try and help Bouket (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Count it lucky that the replacement free image is of good quality ;) . One major driving reason free is preferred over non-free: free is usable on more Wikipedias worldwide, and can appear in books and other media without further ado. Non-free is subject to too many jurisdictional and licensing problems. This isn't about "policing", though it is understandable to think so. Good news: non-free can in some cases be converted to free by requesting a license change at the source by the copyright holder, or a specific release to OTRS (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) with CC-BY-SA license by the copyright holder. --Lexein (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See America First

There is absolutely no substantiated proof to back up the claim that Woolley directed this show in 1927. See America First opened on March 28, 1916 and was directed by directed by J. H. Benrimo.[1] It was never produced during 1927 (let alone directed by Monty Woolley). Even with the citation tag, it is without warrant for inclusion. I am removing it; unless there is objection? Maineartists (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monty Woolley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302140455/http://www.manntheatres.com/chinese/1940s.php to http://www.manntheatres.com/chinese/1940s.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Year Woolley began acting?

Under the information box, you have written ---

  Occupation  Actor
  Years active  1927–1955

Whereas, in the text, you have written ---

  Woolley began directing on Broadway in 1929, and began acting there in 1936 after leaving his academic career.
    [. . .]
  Kismet (1955) - Omar

Clarification, please, for the year Woolley began acting?

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|Wordreader} He also directed, and that began in the late 1920s. He left Yale in 1927 (which may be where that year came from), but I can find no connection to See America First, so I've replaced the starting year with "1929?" since he did direct a 1929 Broadway play. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)