Jump to content

Talk:The Color of Money

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


Disambiguate/split

[edit]

Good changes, and I haven't even seen the IMDB page for this film. I'm really a Wiki-newb, but I think this needs a stub tag and a disambiguation from the book. Much like the Fight Club and Fight Club (film) pages. --Doom Music 1/1/2006

Current edit should be sufficient. We don't have enough material on either the book or the film to warrant an article split; not even close. It's also no longer a stub. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does eventually need to fork into The Color of Money for the book and The Color of Money (film); cf. The Hustler and The Hustler (film). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, when there is sufficient material and reliable sources on the novel it can be split out. At the amount there is nothing more than a plot summary, and articles based on plot summaries are against WP:PLOT. SilkTork *YES! 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a lot more information about the novel to warrant a split up. Keep it as such for now. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs to split. We don't write one article about two different things, unless one is a subtopic of the other, which is not the case here. As long as there's any source at all on the novel, that's good enough. As for the plot, the book is its own source, of course. We just need something, like some reviews, to establish the book's notability. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

I don't see what's wrong with the Legacy section. It's also sourced. 47.152.93.124 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to the film and utterly trivial. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The legacy section is about a pool challenge match that's named after the film. That does define the word legacy. 107.130.120.49 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It has nothing to do with the film. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The legacy of a work does not necessarily refer to later things that deal with the work directly. It also includes later things that make references to it. 2605:E000:2E42:A3F0:25ED:B04F:B6D5:603 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they are relevant and well-sourced. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define "relevant and well-sourced." 2605:E000:2E54:800:D1F4:3D0:D3E6:91B9 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel to The Hustler

[edit]

The way the intro is written seems to obfuscate the fact this is a sequel to the even more highly acclaimed The Hustler (film). That film won two out of nine Oscar nominations. Is there a reason the intro doesn't simply say this is a sequel?108.171.128.182 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Color of Money/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 21:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Please recheck. A lot of references are missing publication dates. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I got them all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the update. However, #20 is now a permanent dead link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the info. I'm sure we could cite to the episode of the show, but I don't think that would even cover what was said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: ok, final note: I believe this article still has a lot of content that can be moved into the article about its production, including Thelma Schoonmaker's role as its editor. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that is a good citation. I'll add something as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little, about the editor, cinematographer, budget etc. from that source. Everything else is mostly quotes and hyperbole, unless you can see something additional. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Progress
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed