Talk:Cash and Carry (film)

Delete Three Stooge Shorts?
Individual episodes of current TV-shows like The Simpsons have their own articles, but articles on classic, theatrical short films, still being watched 70 years after they were made, are considered "unencyclopedic?" I just don't understand the thinking behind this kind of thing. "It's a stub, let's delete it," instead of "It's a stub, let's improve it." --Rizzleboffin 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did some work on the article, may do more later, and encouraged others to add more. I think it should be obvious to anyone seriously interested in contributing as an editor that an article on a film still watched and enjoyed 70 years after it was made has a place in the Wiki-film project. While the article still has plenty room for improvement, it seems obvious the subject has value, so I'm removing the delete tag. --Rizzleboffin 08:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I must assume the delete tag was a PROD as I don't see this nominated for AFD anywhere. Some folks want all "TV episodes" articles eliminated from Wikipedia as well as film articles. As long as there are TV episodes articles, as well as articles on other short films (like those by Chaplin) then the precedent already exists to keep articles like this. 23skidoo 12:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, 23skidoo. Yes, the tag was a "PROD," with the comment "no chance of this article becoming encyclopedic." Additional "unencyclopedic," "Unsourced," and "mergeto|Three Stooges" tags were on the article. I'm new to the deletion process, so maybe I panicked and over-reacted. By tagging one Stooge short for deletion (because of the subject matter being "unencyclopedic"), I felt a precedent was being made to delete them all.
 * Certainly, the article as I came across it last night was minimal, and in dire need of work. But to my mind that means to do some work on the article or ask someone else to, not recommending it for deletion. Though the article can still use work, I think I addressed all the concerns the article was tagged for, and so removed them. If I did not act properly, please let me know. --Rizzleboffin 15:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since I'm the one who added the prod to this article, I should probably comment... I'm one of those people who'd rather WP ditched all "TV episodes" articles, and I feel similarly about most films. This is for two reasons, really - 1, there are better, more comprehensive sites that do filmography; 2, I don't feel most films are significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia (even one that's not paper).  However, having said all that, the only reason I prodded this article was for its brevity.  I can happily ignore it from now on ;-) Valrith 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, Valrith. I see now that I overreacted to the "Prod"-- I hadn't encountered this before, and thought the article was a goner, and that similar articles would soon follow it to the dustbin. Judging from your actions here, however, your position seems to be that you don't want articles on most films unless that article has some substance. Well, I'll agree with you there. A one-sentence article (which this article was) is of (almost) no use to anyone. My policy is generally not to start a film article unless I have at least a filmbox, an image if possible (preferably of the theatrical poster to the original release of the film), some information of value concerning the background of the movie and a minimal plot description. One-sentence articles bother me also, but still, my position is that these articles-- unless the subject itself is completely unworthy of an article-- should be improved, not deleted.
 * I can understand if you don't think every film deserves an article, but I think you can also see that some people do think they deserve articles. Personally, I'm not big on long, drawn-out detailed plot summaries in film articles, but I can see how they would potentially have value to someone. So rather than delete or blank them when I come across them, I try to make sure the grammar, punctuation and format are competent, and then leave them alone.
 * Anyway, thanks for another little learning lesson on the intricacies of Wikipedia. Rather than panicking when I see an article I'm interested in "prodded", I'll just do some work on it. --Rizzleboffin 17:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of Stooges?
I realize the sidebar gives the names of the stars of the show, but would it be appropriate to alter the second sentence to "In the film, Stooges Moe, Larry and Curly star as miners helping a crippled orphan get money for his leg surgery..."? Whenever I flip to a Three Stooges thing on TV, the first thing I look for is which Stooges are in it. Applejuicefool 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or a grammatically correct version of the above (lol) Applejuicefool 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)