Talk:Philomena (film)

Some sources
--MJ for U (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PHILOMENA Production Notes
 * 
 * 
 * 

Cast List
. I have no intention of continuing the edit warring that you have started, so please review the guidelines in WP:BRD so that we can discuss and find some consensus and or WP:Compromise. You made your initial edit, which I reverted and commenting that I did not understand you logic in removing teh notes, and adding unbilled actors to the list (you also rearranged the billing order). i also mentioned that the new actors needed citations for notability. Instead of discussing the reasons for your actions to try and justify them, you reverted and only mentioned: "notability? you mean the actors that play the main roles in a film nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture?" which I don't follow how it is relevant to my remark. The actors in the main roles in the film are all listed in the cast list. It contains ALL six of the billed actors in the film per WP:FILMCAST guideline. There are 39 credited actors in the film and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" so the 33 credited, but unbilled were not included. As is the practice, we list the billed actors (in billing order) and then add any additional actors where there is some notability. I have rearranged to keep at least the billing priority and differentiating the billed from the unbilled actors you want to include. They still need citations to replace the placeholder i put for them, that indicate that these 3 of the 33 unbilled actors are notable in some way for this film. If there is some other logic to your ordering, could you please explain it and justify it since there are several actors who have larger credited roles than some you want to add and actors who deserve higher billing than you gave to them.AbramTerger (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are you the director, writer or producer of the film? Are you solely in charge of this page? Have you seen this movie? The actors listed on the SIDE--> of a film's page are listed according to billing. Any actors in the film can be listed on the film's cast list on the page. (see ANY film's page on Wikipedia) so I don't understand how you think that other actors in the film are not "notable" when they appear in the film in prominent roles. The whole first half of the movie is Young Philomena played by Sophie Kennedy Clark. You don't have have the actor listed who plays her son, when the movie is about...Philomena finding her son. I will be adding the cast back to the list and do not remove them. I only added a few more actors that have prominent screen time, not every actor billed on IMBD. HesioneHushabye (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No I am none of those things. But they indicated that information in the billing of the roles. The people you list are not billed in the film, indicating smaller roles. If they were truly "prominent roles" the actors would have been billed. If you would look at other films, you would note that the practice is billed actors in a the list and then a paragraph of other notable actors afterwards. Also referencing a cast list from a site does not indicate notability. The film has a cast list of 39 actors. They are not all notable, we based it on billing per WP:FILMCAST. Please stick to policies of WP:BRD when making changes, and get a consensus to justify and get consensus before making changes. Please try and justify the changes you proposing since as mentioned before: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Please don't start another edit war or it will be reported.AbramTerger (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I expanded the citations to be more complete.AbramTerger (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeated unconstructive edits
One editor is persistently changing the spelling in the article to US variant:
 * 
 * 

This is in clear breach of MoS as this is not a US article, and also their recent edits:
 * Are counter to the ‘Use British English’ template which has been in the article for over 5 years.
 * Places internal consistencies of spelling into the article.

It is also noted the should the editor revert the recent change, which was to restore the correct spelling, they will be in breach of 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:189B:2F93:24E9:6E4D (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comedy-drama?
Why on earth is this film described and categorised as "comedy-drama"?

It's a tragic real-story of a child taken from his mother by an institution, and how his mother's subsequent search for him is impeded by the nuns who had sold him. She eventually finds that he is dead.

Thia is comic neither in substance nor in style. I see no reliable source describing it as comedy. Rotten Tomatoes classes it as drama (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/philomena), as does Metacritic (see https://www.metacritic.com/movie/philomena) ... and while IMDb classes it as comedy (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/), but IMDb is not a reliable source, because its content is user-generated (see WP:USERGENERATED).

The description as comedy was added in October 2017 by an anon IP whose next edit 16 minutes later was to vandalise the article Richard Branson.

On 3 February 2019, another IP then categorised the film in Category:British comedy-drama films and Category:2010s comedy-drama films.

Then in November 2019. User:Sc2353 added the film to Category:LGBT-related comedy-drama films, presumably on the basis of accepting the existing description and categorisation. (For avoidance of doubt, I do not in any way question either Sc2353's good faith or competence; I frequently do similar edits which sub-categorise on the basis of existing categories).

This all seems to me to be wrong, so I will now remove the description and categorisation as comedy. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. In this edit, I have removed the description and categorisation as comedy. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)