Talk:Silver Linings Playbook

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Silver Linings Playbook (film) → The Silver Linings Playbook –The existing 'Silver Linings Playbook' page is a redirect to discussion of this film at the director's page. Since there is no article on the novel three years after its release, there is no reason that the page should be reserved for it at the expense of a pre-existing article for a very notable film. Krevans (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro excessive detail
The intro contains excessive details about Accolades [undue weight], nearly as much as the whole rest of the intro. The intro does not summarize text from the article, only a table. The prose could be moved to the Accolades section, but the sources are mostly IMDB [unreliable](and a BBC article that only says "8 oscar nominations") and the details about "Big Five" Oscars is original research [not in sources]. If it had been properly source and wasn't original research I could have moved it to the article but it needs a lot of work.

TL;DR intro too long, badly sourced, does not summarize article. -- 93.107.146.136 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been some changes, adding some balance to the lead section but the last paragraph remained excessively long and bloated with awards. The lead section is supposed to summarize not supplant what is actually in the article body (and in this case there is a whole other list article for all the awards, where even more details can be included). I've trimmed it way back, moved some of it down into the article body and removed references to WP:IMDB. -- 109.79.164.63 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The missing song playing at the end credits
The supposedly missing song right after the ending scene, which is not mentioned anywhere in relation to this film, is Wild is the Wind performed by Nina Simone. It can be found on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBAUPi3zX2E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.184.79 (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disorder / BPD/ Bipolar and ETC
I have a mental disorder as well and i think if they dont specifically say the illness please do not self diagnose the illness. Someone keeps changing the disorder statement. I feel that it would misinform the public regarding the disorders etc and it is really offensive to see that. hopefully people put themselves in others' shoes and think about it and not misinform people about it. TBH i have yet to seen the movie but i googled and look for information every where and it does not state the disorder Tiffany have. Not even in the movies it was mentioned i seen some reviews and thus i think is better to leave it as unnamed disorder. Seriously, people should not misinform others, think about friends and family who watched the movie and if someone they know had it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.235.91 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Editors on a crusade to deplatform The Daily Mail vandalized this article as they have done so many others. You might think this was merely sloppy editing and it is unfair to describe it as more than merely "disruptive" but this is part of a years long pattern by editors more interested in deleting than making a better encyclopedia. Instead of making any effort to a find a better source to replace the deprecated source they just went ahead and deleted it, didn't even add a or  tag. Anne Hatheway had reportedly not merely been consider for, but already secured the leading role. Now there's no mention of her at all in the article. It should be possible to confirm Hatheways involvement from other sources. Even if The Daily Mail had been misstating or exaggerating the reasons for her leaving the project, none of that was mentioned here, and it was entirely unhelfpul to remove any mention of her from this article. I might try and fix it later, but this reckless deletion should not have been made in the first place. -- 109.77.192.199 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I re-edited the plot summary and hope to remove the template message to make it more concise.
I believe that the film's plot summary is as concise as it can be. This is my first time editing a plot summary and dealing with template messages. Would any users be willing to assist in completing this task? H.AFI.17 (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC) --H.AFI.17 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)H.AFI.17
 * if a plot section gets too long the easiest (and often best) thing to do is check the article history and see if you can revert back to a last known good version. -- 109.79.164.63 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)