Talk:The Lady Vanishes

	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 British cinema task force.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages[edit]

The film is primarily in English but there is a fair amount of dialogue in other European languages: French and German for sure, I think Italian, maybe Czech, and probably a couple of others. Should that be added to the infobox, or is that information supposed to be for the film’s primary language only? --Mathew5000 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief exchange in Italian between Gilbert and Signora Doppo (he asks her whether she has seen the lady, to which she answers that she has not). Later, Signor Doppo (Philip Leaver) speaks Italian to Dr. Hartz and the Baroness, complaining that the money they offer is insufficient.

copyright status[edit]

I've removed the statement that the film is currently in the Public Domain, as the US Copyright Office lists the film as having it's US rights restored (see document dated 22/Aug/1997). Davepattern 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lady Vanishes shootout.JPG[edit]

Image:Lady Vanishes shootout.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.

— Save_Us_229 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lady moviep.jpg[edit]

Image:Lady moviep.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 ensure 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) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links?[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia and wish to discuss the proper use of an external link on film sites including this one.

Is it permitted to enclose an external link for a site where the film in question is reviewed and presented? The external link points to a site run by a published film writer, director, actor and television personality in Tokyo, Japan (English language).

I am trying to keep the link to The Cinemated Man alive and well because it is informative, useful and the author is a recognized authority.

But each day the links are removed under the guise of 'personal website'. The Cinemated Man site is published by blogspot and the editors are removing it for that reason or claiming the edit is 'spam'.

First of all, it is clearly not spam.

Secondly, even though is is published by blogspot, it is not a daily blog but rather a film review and presentation site. The site is non profit and contains no ads of any kind - not even ad sense, it is informational and is not a 'social networking' entity such as Myspace or Facebook.

Finally, the inclusion of The Cinemated Man link on Wikipedia is a helpful resource for those interested in the films in question. Keeping the link alive can only add to the wealth of resources at Wikipedia. Deleting it can only narrow Wiki's scope.

Also, the external links to Google Video, which has the film in its entirety are also being removed by the same editors for the same reasons. Humbleradio (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blog qualifies as spam under the criteria found at WP:LINKSPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Since you and the other editor have a connection to the blog, this constitutes a conflict of interest. There are many blogs available that address many films, but Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is high. For a film like The Lady Vanishes, there is extensive coverage by third-party, published sources. Adding the blog in light of this is unfortunately not appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this:

"Exception: ...For example, if the Wikipedia article is on a movie named "xyzMovie" and the official site for the movie is "xyzMovie.com" then links or references to "xyzMovie.com" are legitimate for a video at a video sharing page—however, all other links at that video page still must also be legitimate. Some judgement is needed here. If the posted video just advertises a bunch of products associated with the movie, then it is a spamming video even though it refers to the official site."

Clearly, the site mentioned qualifies. Does it not? Can we get some other opinions here, or are we to simply have to comply with what you judge to be right?

In other words, if Alfred Hitchcock wanted to make a reference to one of his films, he couldn't on Wikipedia? I am missing something here?Humbleradio (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humbleradio (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stars"[edit]

The "starring" entry on the infobox is not meant to be a place to list every actor in the film, or even all the prominent actors. It's meant for a list of the film's stars. Since who is or isn't a star can be somewhat subjective, one of the best guides is the movie's own advertising, in the form of the poster. For this film, the poster clearly shows that the film's stars are Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, Paul Lukas and Dame May Whitty. (In fact, but a very strict definition, only Lockwook and Redgrave are stars, since Lukas and Whitty are billed as "with" - but it is here that an editor's judgment can come into play. In this case, Lukas and Whitty are billed very prominently, making it a good call to list them in the "starring" entry.) Other actors, no matter how prominent they are, or were to become, shouldn't be listed in the "starring" entry, unless there's a darn good reason to do so --- but, while perhaps a case mught be made for another actor or two, there is no case for a whole slew of actors who are unbilled to be listed as the film's "stars". Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that the verb "starring" implies that the person is a "film star". I would argue that the latter has a different connotation, that of a very popular actor/actress, whereas "starring" merely means "has a prominent role" in the particular film being referred to. BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An example: The Blob (1958) stars Steven McQueen (as he was then billed), but he couldn't be considered a film (or television) star at the time. BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space[edit]

Why is there forced space at the TOC? The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dame May[edit]

Why is she the only one referred to with her title? 86.130.42.173 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film's credits present her name as "Dame May Whitty". None of the other actors had titles at the time the film was produced. Redgrave would become "Sir Michael" much later. Bede735 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Lady Vanishes which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poison[edit]

Dr. Hartz doesn't tell the nun to poison Iris and Gilbert. He tells her to administer a soporific drug (as he explains to Iris and Gilbert before he believes they are about to fall asleep. Kostaki mou (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clarinet?[edit]

The instrument that Gilbert plays early in the film is widely described as a clarinet. However, it has a much wider and flatter bell than a clarinet, seems to be somewhat shorter, and has a different tone than a clarinet.

Can anyone identify what it actually is? BMJ-pdx (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]