Talk:The Lady Vanishes (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Film

This disambiguation page 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

No subject[edit]

Reading what a movie is all about, for example on the back of a video, is exactly what I have always hated. Do you really think that moving the spoiler warning down is an improvement? I had actually made a bet that it would only take a few minutes until someone did so. KF

No reply, so I'll ask the question again (and this applies not just to The Lady Vanishes but to all book and movie summaries): What's the point of inserting the spoiler warning after the first spoiler (in this case the fact that Miss Froy is a British agent)? Is what it says on video backs or, generally, in blurbs the standard for Wikipedia articles?

KF, 16 Sept 2002

For the record, I've moved the bit about Miss Froy's actual occupation to the point in the plot where it is revealed (which is quite some way after the spoiler warning). It really shouldn't have been before the spoiler warning.

--Paul A 06:15 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Nice job you did over night improving this page, Paul A, Someone else, Zoe, Hephaestos and Koyaanis Qatsi. Does any of you know who the guy in the second picture is? --KF 06:10 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

It's one of the comic-relief cricket obsessives, but I can't recall off-hand which one.

--Paul A 06:15 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Comparing pictures, it looks like Basil Radford. Compare the picture at http://www.dacre.org/stills/webr/Rad3581.jpg. -- Zoe

I've just added his name. Thanks, Zoe. --KF 06:38 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved all. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The 1938 Hitchcock film is the original and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this, by both long term significance and common usage. As it is now fashionable to use pageview stats to illustrate such things, let me give you this: [1]. 22,358 views in the last 90 days, compared with just under 6,000 for each of the other two films, and 819 for the dab page. — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The case is well made. — AjaxSmack 01:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the 1938 film is clearly the primary topic. PamD 08:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the 1938 film article was created in 2002 at the base name, but information about the 1979 remake was later added to that article. They were split in Feb 2007 and the new article created, but without the {{copied}} template or any other indication of attribution for the existing content. Someone might like to do some repair work ... ! PamD 08:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As above, the 1938 film is the clear primary topic. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.