Talk:The Hangover

infobox starring
Not a big deal, but I think it is better to go by the small print, since that is the part of the poster where they fulfill their contractual agreement about who has to be mentioned. In other words, that is the part where the decision was made that the participants themselves had input. The picture is what the marketing department thought would promote the film, so has less credibility (clearly we don't care who played the baby). Should "with's" be listed as starring? Cases vary, but usually it's an indication that you got a prime mention instead of an ordinary mention. That's my thinking anyway, especially when there are only six actors all together named on the poster, none above the title. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If billing is available that's great, but both posters for this and the second film focus on these 3 characters, that's how we know they are the main characters. Even if you go by the small print only Helms, Cooper, Gafafasfdsfsdfsfsdf and Graham are listed while Tambor and Bartha are only listed as "With" which is not the same thing.  Helms, Cooper and Grafdasdadas are ON the poster and listed by name on the poster.  Even in the film, Tambor and Bartha are only listed as "With" because they don't have starring roles.  Epps gets higher billing in the film and he's only in it for 4 minutes.  So if you want to go by the small print, it should contain the main 3 and Heather Graham at most. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the small print doesn't have more authority that the image used for marketing. Deon Richmond doesn't star in Scream 3 but he got billed on the poster to make his character seem important.  In fact the small print for that particular poster features every actor whose character has a name which is again a reason we don't just use the small print. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, for our purposes, small print is a more reliable source. The picture means absolutely nothing. (You don't think the baby's name is important, do you?) This becomes obvious when you see older films on their remarketing round when the publicity includes someone who maybe wasn't so well known when the film was first released. As I mentioned, "with" can be seen as an honorific; it's something an actor will negotiate to highlight their performance. But this is a detail either way. Bottom line, don't go by the poster unless you want to run down the name of that baby actor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing about the presence of the baby is being pedantic. You wouldn't list the dogs from Eight Below.  He clearly isn't part of the cast, he's a prop.  "With" is as honorific as executive-producer and we don't list those either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not pedantic. It just shows the flaw in your reasoning. Also, you're wrong in your comparison of ED and "with": no one gets "with" for doing nothing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "With" is because they're in the film, maybe are a big name or whatever but they aren't in it enough to be classed as a star. Theres a reason there is a Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor,  because there are tiers.  Justin Bartha would, for instance, be submitted for Best Supporting Actor while Zach Gararasedasdasdasd would not.  And yes it is being pedantic.  Would you list Crystal the monkey for Hangover 2?  The baby I don't think was even credited in the credits, its a macguffin in the film as much as the tiger.  It's presence on the poster doesn't mean it should be listed under my arguement any more than Ed Helms t-shirt would be, he is not a "starring" actor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether or not this point has been resolved, but with regards to whether the pictures or the actual credits are more pertinent to the infobox, we just had that conversation. Doniago (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That conversation doesn't deal with billing or "with" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Wasn't the focus of the issue at hand. That being said, documentation for the infobox says to remove qualifiers such as "with", which it could be argued implies that what follows should be included. Doniago (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well according to this:
 * "Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film. Separate multiple entries with a line break . In addition, link each actor to his/her appropriate article if possible. Do not add qualifiers such as "with" or "featuring", nor should punctuation or "and" be added as the line break acts as the text separator."
 * It should be those who had major roles in the film, combining that with the poster, Tambor and Bartha still don't apply and Heather Graham is still the most applicable. Helms, Cooper and Gararafafddsixo are the Starring roles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You still want someone to accept that the poster picture has some kind of authority? That will make sense as soon as you come up with the name of the baby. You see, it's obvious that the baby isn't a star, yet the baby is included. What does that tell us? It tells us that the poster picture is unreliable. On the other hand, the small print was negotiated by the relevant parties. That's why it has more authority. However, I don't think in this case that the "with" actors are so important. Despite the fact that your reasoning is flawed, it could be defensible leaving out the "with" actors given the size of their roles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with my reasoning, your focus on the baby isn't hiding the fact that you are ignoring what I have already said concerning the baby and by association the Monkey from Hangover II. I even gave you an example with Eight Below, the dogs probably "star" int hat more than the baby does in this but we wouldn't consider listing them either.  Your response?  "You're wrong" before segueing into a different point. I've also posted the information from the infobox template which says it should feature "Starring" actors only and Tambor, Bartha and Graham are not in starring roles in the film though of the three, Graham may come closest.  The three major roles are Alan, Phil and Stu. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring it. Both examples you cite make my case. I agree with you, we aren't interested in the baby or the monkey. Therefore, the poster picture is unreliable. I don't see how it could be any more obvious. Are you arguing that we know what to ignore, therefore the poster is a good authority? That is circular reasoning. To make your case, you need to show that there are cases where the poster is more reliable than the small print. The baby and the monkey are the opposite. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm arguing that each is a case by case basis that we use guidelines to judge and that we are intelligent enough to use our better judgement, see the three main actors in this particular film and note that the baby and the monkey are not the same thing. They may be alive but they're just props. Even if the baby was a star I don't think even the baby in Baby's Day Out got billing. The same type of poster is used for The Hangover II, features the same characters and a monkey but those 3 ARE the main characters and the major roles of each film. Jamie Foxx isn't on the poster for Horrible Bosses though the other 6 main characters are, but he gets actual billing alongside the rest but Donald Sutherland neither appears nor gets billing, I can't read if he is in the small print but I wouldn't agree with him going in the Starring section though people keep adding him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say that we can't rely on the poster picture? We have to substitute our better judgment? Very true. Exactly my point. That is characteristic of a source that is not reliable, because if we relied on it, we'd make mistakes. It's unreliable. It might be right or it might be wrong. Unreliable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. The small print is no more an ideal, like I said with Scream 3, there are 12 names in the small print of that poster, should we list them all?  In that case it'd be better to refer to the billing.  We're not ignorant of what this film is about, it is about Stu, Phil and Alan and assuming you've seen the film you know this and know that is why those characters on the poster.  That is their billing, three pictures of those 3 actors plus they are the first 3 names in the small print, one corroborates the other. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it usually makes sense to list everyone above the title plus three more unless there's no one above the title. Have to evaluate the with's and featuring's separately. (Pointing out that the small print is almost the same as the poster doesn't make the poster reliable. The baby is on the poster.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the baby is a damn prop. Are you just willfully ignoring this now?  The baby is not a starring, suppoorting, featuring, with, including, introducing or anything else, its a prop, the film isn't about the baby, the baby is not the focus. You've assumedly seen the film, you should know this.  You keep focusing on the baby to invalidate a point when we've been over how it matters as much as the monkey does in The Hangover II, Ghostface does on a Scream poster, the dogs do on Eight Below, the gun on Casino Royale, the ship in Indepdencene Day or the woman sat on the Harold and Kumar logo.  Drop the baby point because it isn't a valid arguement against anything.  And when the first 3 names in the small print match the 3 central characters in the film that are then featured on the poster...well hello better judgement, how are you today?
 * You're using circular logic. The poster is inaccurate, but you're trying to say it's accurate because the parts that are inaccurate (baby) can be ignored. But if we already know which parts to ignore we don't really have to look at the poster, do we? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the poster inaccurate? We know which parts to ignore on a personal level and on a logic level because NO FILM has the baby in the infobox because we also have the useful fact that the baby has no credit to be had. Not on the poster not even in the credits of the film so it has no credit to be had, problem solved, you can stop referring to the damn baby and come up with a genuine arguement why the main actors, the main roles, the poster image and the small print do not all corroborate who should appear in the major roles only "starring" listing in the infobox.  Do not bring up the baby again, it has no bearing whatsoever on this, you're just being incredibly pedantic and petty about it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How can it be accurate if you have to ignore parts of it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Hangover (film) → The Hangover – Primary topic with enduring notability. Page views: Film 209,185, album 305, album 116. There are several other partial title matches listed at Hangover (disambiguation).-- Marcus   Qwertyus   02:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic, as shown by the page views. Jenks24 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Was going to argue against but considering there is already a Hangover (disambiguation), anyone searching specifically for "The Hangover" should be led here, not to "Hangover"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:Primary topic. - Darwinek (talk) 15:52, 2 August 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.

More stuff
For archival reasons WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://hangovermovie.warnerbros.com/the_hangover_home.swf
 * http://hangovermovie.warnerbros.com/options.html

GA review preparation
All right. There are still things we need to do to get this article to GA status. All are welcome to help with this process and if any of you have any further suggestions discuss them here. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead section - needs to be expanded.
 * Production section - needs a complete reorganization (i.e. "Development and pre-production", "Production", "Filming" and "Post-production" in this order.) and more details on the filming history need to be added in addition to the Nevada filming locations.
 * Release - needs a marketing section.
 * Reception section - looks good as well. However, it may need to be expanded with more positive reviews.
 * Citations - Repair or replace dead links and properly format the citations.
 * Others - As per the first GA review, there are several issues with the Manual of Style. Also, all of the important aspects of the filming need to be summarized. Also, I am seriously concerned about whether we should remove the Examiner citations or not.

Useful source
Saw this interview at The Hollywood Reporter that offers a lot of background insight into the production of the first two films. Might be useful to the article. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hangover-uncensored-oral-history-449046 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Runtime
If there is an extended cut, there is no reason not to mention its runtime in the infobox. What's really inappropriate, though, is "tossing" valid sources that were found by other editors. We're all in the same boat, ... or so I thought? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content, not editors. If you agree that the cite/info belongs elsewhere, reverting another editor who removed the misplaced info is not constructive. Yeah, you wanted the other editor to move it, rather than remove it. Now that you've restored the info to the wrong spot, the improvement is zero.
 * If you don't agree that it belongs elsewhere, please explain why you feel it belongs here. (It would seem that removing the field from the infobox template (as was apparently done some time ago) indicates that the consensus was to not include the info where you are putting it.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The removed field was "followed by"... you seem to mix the two. I restored because I felt that the other editor is pretty much sitting in his throne, expects me to do all the work, and dismisses my edits with a single revert until I get it right. I have to go now, so I'll make the proper changes later, just wanted to clarify. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I moved the extended cut runtime into the section where it is mentioned. Where are those discussions at FILMPROJECT that reached a consensus stating that only the theatrical version's runtime should be in the infobox? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not "sitting on my throne" as you so graciously state. As the item was already mentioned in the home media section I saw no need to alter the sentence that was already there. I Then logged off and have only just come back to check my watchlist. The most recent discussion is here although there have been others in the past. I will be taking this page off my watchlist so feel free to make other alterations as you see fit. I know that you have been around a long time and are a good editor with WikiP's best interests at heart so my apologies for having upset you. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion I am aware of was on the infobox.,, (Executive summary: Discussion was focused on keeping the box concise, with much angst arising from the troubled history of Blade Runner.) -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Hangover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090701000249/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/06292009/gossip/pagesix/todd_phillips_rips_hwood_whiners_176690.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/06292009/gossip/pagesix/todd_phillips_rips_hwood_whiners_176690.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"What do tigers dream of when they take a little tiger snooze?" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_do_tigers_dream_of_when_they_take_a_little_tiger_snooze%3F&redirect=no What do tigers dream of when they take a little tiger snooze?] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)