Talk:Thank You for Smoking/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1

Question

  • If "Thank You For Smoking" doesn't have it's own wiki that is unrelated to the movie, why is it necessary to have the movie here rather than there? Krazykillaz 16:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware "Thank You For Smoking" was a slogan for cigarette companies long before the film was produced. Before state laws banned smoking in buildings, cigarette company offices used to have signs saying "Thank You For Smoking" etc. That's why I'm proposing the move to (film) rather than undisambiguated. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clearing that up. Krazykillaz 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Chopin

Is there any point to the trivia on Chopin's Ballad? I understand that it is indeed trivia, but it just doesn't seem to be relevant to anything in the movie. --Zifnabxar 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Last Comment in the "Trivia" Section

The last comment in the "Trivia" section indicates that Eckhart's statement about a cigarette in an all oxygen environment causing an explosion is untrue, but then continues to argue that a sea-level type composition of air is used on the International Space Station. This does not really fit with the previous asertion. Eckhart's comment about a cigarette in an oxygen environment may still be true, even if an all oxygen environment is not used on the International Space Station. I edited the page to fix this problem.

I have to say I don't really care, but to set the facts straight:

Oxygen is not combustable unless pressurized, unlikely in a breathing environment like a space station since- ask any scuba diver- concentrated oxygen can be toxic and raise the alkalility of blood causing syncope. The famous fire aboard the Apollo was not an explosion, the fire simply spreadvery quickly due to oxygen's role as an accelerant. The oxygen in the Apollo's cabin was also more pressurized than it would have been in space. (though I can't remember why). Smoking in a space station is still a bad idea though. Angrynight 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting side note: Fire danger in a zero gravity environment is actually much LESS than it is in regular gravity. In gravity, hot air rises from the heat of the fire, bringing in new cold oxygenated air from the bottom. In zero gravity, there is no "up", so hot air doesn't rise. Fires put themselves out very quickly after consuming all the oxygen in their immediate vicinity. - Richfife 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The current addition involving the reference to "BR" is an unfounded plug, more than likely fan-based. Until further references are made, I will be editiing it.

DVD Release?

Any one know when the DVD for this film will be released? 150.210.226.5 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm holding one in my hand right now, and I bought it used! So presumably it's been available for some time by now. --TexasDex 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Being made in to a TV show

Seems like it's something that should be added somewhere.

I added it yesterday. It's in the second paragraph. Greyfedora 02:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD Case

The article mentions that the cover for the DVD is based off of a cigarette container, but the source doesn't prove it. Can anyone else find a source for the statement?72.25.66.221 08:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone had the great idea to wikilink talking head, which is great since I wanted to check that out and see more about that, but it leads to a DAB page, and I'm not sure where to de-dab that. Can someone use different terminology or clarify that term? --MPD01605 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it obviously refers to the first definition, but that doesn't have its own article. For the time being, I've put in a piped link to pundit (expert), though that's also less than perfect. ~Switch t c g 08:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I'm not convinced the trivia section of this article really needs a cleanup tag. It all seems legitimate, even interesting, and not easily integrated into other sections of the page. What exactly is the problem that needs attention? I understand that the idea is to invite new people to contribute, but I think that an overabundance of "this part of the article has problems" tags detracts from the overall quality of presentation at Wikipedia, giving it a kind of amateur vibe that I don't think is always warranted. Just a thought. --Tractorkingsfan 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? Alright, it's gone. --Tractorkingsfan 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to do this late, but please review WP:AVTRIV. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Read. Trivia section gone. --Tractorkingsfan 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move (2006)

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

Should be moved to Thank You For Smoking (film) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). savidan(talk) (e@) 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved this page immediately in order to fix User:Fernandobouregard's cut and paste move. Rhobite 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I oppose a move to Thank You For Smoking (film) based on the text from the link you provided stating: "When disambiguating a film from something else..." (emphasis added). I do not think that a disambig is needed for a slogan that is hardly notable. —A 11:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I oppose this as well, seeing as how there is currently no article on the slogan itself, it's completely unnecessary to have a disambiguation at this point; there's simply nothing to "disambiguate" it from.--Sycron 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The book doesn't count, then?
Opposed. The book is at it's actual title, "Thank You For Smoking: A Novel." BabuBhatt 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that the book is now at Thank You for Smoking (novel). DES (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Smoking on the DVD

The article said that there is a scene in the movie where the main character smokes, then passes out. I just finished watching the Region 1 DVD and that scene was NOT in the movie. Was it cut or is that section of the article untrue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.20.102 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it was a deleted scene. There were also several deleted scenes which showed an actual cigarette, something which didn't appear in the film either, IIRC. Well, the black and white movie Nick watches (Sands of Iwo Jima) showed a cigarette I guess. Hoof Hearted 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thank you for smoking Poster.jpg

Image:Thank you for smoking Poster.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 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 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Modsquad.jpg

Image:Modsquad.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations

  • Sharon Waxman (2005-09-13). "Competing Studios Claim Rights to the Same Film". The New York Times.
  • Rebecca Murray (2005-09-13). "Fox Searchlight and Paramount Classics Claim "Thank You for Smoking" Deals". About.com.
  • Owen Gleiberman (2006-03-22). "Rebel Rouser". Entertainment Weekly.
  • Shawn Wines (April 2006). "Lobbying is Kind of Funny". Ignore Magazine.
  • Michael Janofsky (2006-04-02). "Thank You for O.K.'ing Addiction". The New York Times.
  • Alan Vanneman (May 2006). "How Slick Is Too Slick?". Bright Lights Film Journal.

Resources to use. Wildroot (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress (August 2011)

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

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thank You for Smoking (novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move (October 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Thank You for Smoking → Thank You for Smoking (film) – To allow this page to be turned into a dab page for the novel and the book. The book, although it is the source, is possibly not the primary topic, since this page gets a lot more views (although this is likely due to recentism and the fact that the film has been at the primary page), but it is very nonstandard for a film to be the primary topic over it's source unless it is incredibly renowned or well known, or the book was not known at all (which is not the case here, the book is written by a famous author). It seems fairly logical, then, to create a disambiguation page for the two. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Yes please! Of course such a qualifier is of immediate benefit to readers, and has no downside – unless it be simply that some who wish provisions in policy and guidelines to be interpreted narrowly and blindly have that wish thwarted. The needs of readers are paramount. Please let's respect that, and give this information that is so easy to provide as part of the title. Compare thousands of cases where this is already done, as a matter of course. O, and let's not assume that there is a primary topic. Why should there be, in this case? And how does settling on one and cutting away short and obviously helpful qualifications help anyone? In most cases it does not. NoeticaTea? 01:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    The primary topic is what readers are most likely looking for. In the last 30 days, the film article has been viewed 21,858 times, where the book article has been viewed 1,733 times. Readers are far more likely to want to read about the film than about the book. You say to respect the needs of the readers. The current setup serves their needs the best. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    If there is a primary topic (an artificial notion from the outset), that topic is often what readers are most likely looking for. But the notion of primary topic is not always helpful. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is too often invoked inaccurately or mechanically – without keeping an eye on the role of simple qualifiers that help some readers, and inconvenience no one at all. I dispute your numeric evidence. No one can tell from those statistics what it is that people were looking for, when they hit upon the string "Thank You for Smoking" (not a noun phrase; not obviously a title, since capitals are used for many purposes). Many enquirers have never heard of the book or the film; many are directed from Google searches, or from other browsing. If we put "(film)" in the title, they are immediately informed. What can be wrong with that? NoeticaTea? 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
    You're right that the page view statistics do not directly reflect search queries, only visits. However, it is clear that the film article gets far more readers than the book article. There's not many readers who go from the film article to the book article. In other words, they are largely satisfied about where they have arrived. Moving this page one navigational step away and disambiguating by "(film)" is not any more useful. The film article itself as a film in the hatnote, not to mention in the lead sentence, or with the film infobox, if readers have read other film articles before. These are two topics that are not broad concepts, and neither are revolutionary in their fields, so I do not see any other criteria to consider besides what readers want. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: There was a requested move last August, seen at Talk:Thank You for Smoking (novel) – Requested move. The difference here is that a disambiguation page is being proposed at Thank You for Smoking instead of making it the primary topic slot for the novel. There was no consensus to complete the previous move. The closing admin indicated that there was no consensus for "the suggested dab page experiment" (basically the current requested move but permanent) and said to reconsider "after the recentism has died down a bit more". A few months does not seem like a lot. Is there something that's different now? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This proposal was made partway through the last one, and wasn't really strongly voted on or discussed by the participants. There was no consensus for this proposal because it was never actually officially proposed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editing

Ok, we just made a lot of edits on this one. Feel free to correct it if there's any mistakes.

I changed the surname of the senator portrayed by Macy from "Finisterre" to "Finistirre"; I have no screen captures, but you can see his name spelled that way during the movie. IMDb also reports the name as Finistirre Tomaradze (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Also Rob Lowe is amazingly hot, complete eye candy. ^whoever it is up there forgot to mention that, but now its in his role thing. So all's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabertaber (talk • contribs) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thank You for Smoking (film). 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thank_You_for_Smoking/Archive_1&oldid=1137226107"