Talk:Gangster No. 1

Taking out
I'm taking out the part of the article about homoerotic as most anyone who looks at the move in depth can see this is not the case. Its more of how Gangster 55 idolizes and seek's to be just like him, i.e taking the pin with his initials. He nevers sees may's sexually, nor does he seek to be physical with him. He is infatuated with his image and is main goal in life was to be just like him. Furiso 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well there's none so blind as will not see. I'd say that there are enough hints that it is a valid reading. First the gift of the pin. Then Freddie invites a couple of girls to join them as camouflage AND explicitly mentions it looks suss. Then there's the looks. Also the protagonist is never seen with a girl, and makes several rather hmm misogynisic comments, in striking contrast to Freddie. I don't think it is the only interpretation, but it struck me that way on first viewing. Good film except for the end. Greg Locock (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gangster No1.jpg
Image:Gangster No1.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 10:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gangster
The article was in a sad state and doesn't even have basic reference coverage. It didn't seem like a bold move to try and improve such a badly neglected start of an article. The edit summary even indicated some of the changes were good, so please do only a partial revert of the things you actually disagree with, and we can discuss the rest. Simplified ruleset asks "Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do." I made my edits in WP:GOODFAITH.

The article plot is less than ideal. WP:FILMPLOT recommends a fairly limited word count so verbose phrasing about things that aren't plot are better avoided. The summary pedantically begins with "The film opens" which of course every film does, and equally "The film closes" is a waste of words that could be used to describe actual plot elements. The wording "The narrative flashes back to" could also be more succinct. The severe word count required makes these unnecessarily verbose wordings a terrible choice. Tightening up the phrasing could create opportunities for including other more interesting plot information (or just keeping the plot section tight).

The lead character is called Gangster 55. I capitalized the first use of "Gangster" because it was referring to the character and I was trying to make the distinction between the other gangsters mentioned and the character Gangster 55. Perhaps using the credited character name and italicizing it would be a better way to do improve clarity, I'm open to suggestions. -- 109.79.87.175 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

. Using a nice list template also helps avoid the need for using all those ugly html tags, and it is more elegant to present a list of things as an actual list. -- 109.79.87.175 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I draw your attention to WP:ALT because images should have alternative descriptions to help with accessibility. That it hasn't been done yet is not a good reason to delete this parameter.
 * The word "currently" is better avoided, it is better to be say when if it matters but more often leave it out. WP:RELTIME.
 * Please note WP:LINEBREAK which explains that the strictly correct way to format a linebreak is


 * Because that's cumbersome and I chose not to. You're the one who decided to make dozens of changes in one edit, after all. You're also demonstrably lying because I did not remove the reviews you added, so it's hard to take your platform of good faith seriously. That instance of "gangster" was not referring to the character, it was a common noun, indicated by the use of an indefinite article, "an unnamed British veteran gangster". Also unneeded addition of reference footnotes in the infobox, etc, etc. Really, just read the "Getting started" links and make small changes until you get accustomed to what constitutes good edits and what doesn't rather than edit war. JesseRafe (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I reacted too quickly as some editors are very harsh and revert everything wholesale. I apologize again, you did keep some of my edits.
 * I didn't think I'd have to discuss making changes to an article that looked so badly neglected, and missing simple things like reviews and inline references. Perhaps you'd like to add some American reviews?
 * I'm doing things the way I see most other film articles do them. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself doing some things in strict ways that aren't necessary for an article starting off but I don't understand why anyone would be against including them either. (I honestly don't understand why you don't want a named reference in the infobox.) -- 109.79.87.175 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Guardian article with comments from the director McGuigan. Might use later to start a Production section. -- 109.79.87.175 (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Independent said it flopped at the box office but doesn't give any details.
 * BFI box office information doesn't go back as far 2000 (only as far as Dec 2001). -- 109.79.87.175 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)