Talk:You Can't Take It with You (film)

Play vs. film
I understand that there are differences in the plot between the film and the play. (I haven't seen the film, so I'm just reporting what I've heard.) There is a relatively detailed summary of the play in the article on the play. If there are significant differences, shouldn't this article include at a minimum a discussion of the differences, and at best a summary of the film?

BTW, is the film any good? Should I rent it?

Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As is, this article is totally inadequate, as said above, and does not include any background about the film, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You Can't Take It With You (film) → You Can't Take It with You (film) – Per MOS:CT, consistency with other articles listed at You Can't Take It with You. Jenks24 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of sources correctly capitalize the "W" in the this title. When there is emphasis on a word in a title, it should be capitalized. Also WP:IGNORE because common sense.  F i l m F a n  21:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCCAPS. with is a preposition and should not be uppercased. Too bad "common sense" is used as an opposition when in fact we end up debating about style case-by-case. Therefore, I can't use "common sense" just to ignore the guideline and to make exceptions. Consensus must have agreed to make prepositions no more than four letters lowercased. Thus it became a guideline. Whilst four-letter prepositions may seem nothing special, lowercasing such words would correct the grammar of the title and distinguish them from other types of words, like verbs and nouns. Somehow, the guideline conflicts with many sources using "With", and WP:PAG doesn't know what to do with every situation like this. The spirit of NCCAPS is to uppercase the title of a medium (book, film, newspaper, etc.) but not the title of anything else. Of course, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but I don't think NCCAPS is misused, right? We can't ignore the guideline when neither uppercasing nor lowercasing with improves encyclopedia well. We can just uppercase it and move on without affecting the encyclopedia. Fair? Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Moving it to lower case would certainly not improve it. The WP:NCCAPS guideline is not wrong for the vast, vast majority of titles, but it is not absolute. It exists because you don't emphasize short prepositions in titles, they simply aren't keywords, they link the keywords together... except from in very rare cases, such as this. Read the title out loud and tell me what the keywords are?  F i l m F a n  05:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Retaining the uppercasing of with wouldn't improve the encyclopedia either. "with you" is a prepositional phrase. Of course, keywords, according to dictionary, are words of great significance. All of the words used for the title are just generic, but that shouldn't make the title insignificant. A title is part of a film, but people don't give a damn about how titles must be and cite sources as excuses to oppose something they claimed "not" to care about. I couldn't follow the logic of caring and not caring. Of course, you'll try to rebut me with "keywords", which would fall apart. Speaking of sources, Man creates sources and writes whatever pleases Him. Opinions of readers won't influence him or convince him. He likes to uppercase or lowercase any word that is part of a film title without explaining why. Of course, a reader says that he doesn't give a damn yet votes opposition on something that would make sense. George Ho (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't honestly see the significance of anything you just wrote. But I can tell you that sources are not my argument - simply a strengthening factor. Common sense is my argument. Keywords (of which there are three) should be the heart of this discussion. Writing the title with a lower case "W" is jarring to the mind because a word in a title without a capital letter is not a word you emphasize, and it cannot be denied (indeed, no one to this point has denied) that the word "With" is a keyword with emphasis in this title.  F i l m F a n  07:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense is a basic ability/sense of judgment, perception, and understanding shared by (or common to) most people. Somehow, you assume many will share your senses in regards to this. I won't be able to agree with your "common sense" argument without explaining your abilities in detail. Here's my ability: rebutting each other back and forth would turn people off, and many would share this view about debates going nowhere. I don't think "common sense" applies to uppercasing or lowercasing. In fact, the community has been divided over capitalization, so there is no such thing as "nearly all people" or "most people" in general. Half says uppercase prepositions; other half says lowercase short, tiny prepositions. When capitalization is argued, a debate resorts to petty win-lose discussion, and there is no way to resolve the NCCAPS vs sources debate. "Common sense" won't stop this debate; in fact, "common sense" would make rebuttals look immature and petty. I guess I can't convince you to change sides. George Ho (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CT. Also, given the result of two recent moves with the same titles, Talk:You Can't Take It with You (play) and Talk:You Can't Take It with You (album). Aspects (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:CT and consistency, per nom and Aspects. We have guidelines, and we should follow them (unless we change them). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should follow the guidelines. Except when you should WP:IGNORE them. Like..... say..... here.....  F i l m F a n  00:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How does the titling rule prevent us from improving Wikipedia? Even when a rule doesn't improve Wikipedia, it doesn't prevent us from improving Wikipedia either. --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect credits
Mischa Auer was left out, Ann Doran played Mary 2601:441:8380:E510:10B:3580:5C25:7B5B (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)