User talk:Cinemaniac/Archives/Marxes and Stooges

my username (Why Not A Duck)
No, I'm not actually a fan of the Marx Brothers, but yes, that's where my username came from (the famous "why a duck" line). Went to pick something, and the first few things I thought of were either stupid, or implied I was an expert on something I wasn't, or might be considered offensive. -- Why Not A Duck 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a fan? "Hey, come here! You act-a craze! What's-a matter for you-a!"  :)  —  Cinemaniac (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxes
The articles seem pretty good to me in general. I'll study them more when I get back to my regular PC in a few days. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll focus my contribs on those Marx Brothers articles for the next few days; then, I'll work on improving a few Star Wars-related articles, and after that I'll come back to the animation-related articles, which I think need a lot more work than the former two. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles about specific cartoons can pretty much follow a formual. The basic info can be had from the LT & MM book. The plot outline can be paraphrased from there as needed and/or the actual cartoon viewing can be used as the source. That works for WB's anyway. Others, I can't say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Duck Soup has now been requested for peer review; anyone interested in contributing feedback can go that articles talk page and follow the link. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not responding sooner. While I find the Marx Brothers quite funny and have seen all of their films at least once each, I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to take part in such a project as you describe. Sorry. Ted Watson (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at his talk page. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A peer review (by others besides me, as I'm too close to the topic) is a good idea. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although it sounds like I should look at it some more, as per your recent note. I'll have a better chance to do that after I get off my current road trip. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup
I'm not a big fan of the Marx Brothers' style of comedy, so don't count of me for much. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine; even if your not exactly a Marx Brothers fan, you can still contribute by cleaning up the references, or balancing out the article so that it doesn't appear as "fangush". In fact, someone not too close to the subject would probably help out the most! ;) And again, Happy New Year to you, Clarityfiend! — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Happy New Years to you too. I might look into that later, after I wake up. It's 2008 now, but I call it 1988. I know, I'm wierd. Once again, happy new year. Agtax 09:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter
First, happy new year, I hope you enjoy '08! Concerning the newsletter, it normally would have been sent out yesterday, but the person that usually sends it out is on a WikiBreak and won't be able to send it until tomorrow, so you should see it then. For the peer reviews, I didn't see anything else that the other reviewers already said for Duck Soup, but let me know when you finish making the changes and I'll give it a copyedit and see if it is ready for B class. For the Princess Leia article, if you want to bring it up to GA class or higher, it is going to need more inline citations, especially for the sections that have none at all (which appear to be from the books after the films). Also throughout the article there are multiple single sentences. These shouldn't stand alone and should either be expanded or merged into another paragraph. For the inline citations, consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET, as you can then include information about the website, title, author, access date, etc. It will make the references easier to read, but if you haven't used the templates before, I'd recommend practicing with them a bit and previewing a lot before saving. If you have any further questions let me know, and again welcome to the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the advice. Concerning your comments on the Princess Leia article, I went ahead and copy-edited your comments at the peer review page for that article.  I hope you don't mind; I went ahead and duplicated any relevant information you provided verbatim, as well as your time stamp.  In any case, thanks, and a Happy New Year to you, too! — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too! I haven't much time on Wikipedia today, what with the Bowl games and all, so here's a couple of brief thoughts: If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Duck Soup is an old film, so I think that for the article to significantly improve, you would need to track down offline resources. I have a feeling that this film has likely been covered at length in books and newspaper articles between its release and today, so you may want to try out keywords for Duck Soup in Google Book Search, Google News Archive Search, and Google Scholar Search.  If you have a university account, you can learn to search the keywords in newspaper articles locked in subscription-only databases.  The one I've used frequently is Access World News -- hopefully, it's available to you!  Like Nehrams mentioned above, implementing templates is also a good idea.  Though I'm biased, I'd suggest Fight Club (film) was an example to follow.  You'll see a healthy mix of offline and online resources for a 1999 film.  For this one, I think that there'd likely be a slant toward offline resources.  If you have questions about researching, let me know, and I can help out!  I've provided subpages to some editors with some headlines.
 * 2) For Princess Leia Organa, I think that there is plenty of room for improvement. One important thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia grounded in real-world context.  Thus, in-universe information should be downplayed and used to complement the real-world context of the character.  I would suggest reviewing WP:FICTION if you haven't already.  Also, I would recommend the character articles Jason Voorhees and Captain Jack Sparrow (good works by editors I know) to serve as guides.  You can ask them for advice, too.  My thought for this particular character is to find out about its conception, like how Lucas came up with the character and why he designed her the way he did.  Also look at how the character has been publicly received.  I imagine that there's probably some commentary on the sibling kiss and perhaps some feminist studies about her, since she seems to be a major female icon.  She's also been in quite a number of Star Wars books since the original trilogy, so you could look at how reviewers have criticized different authors' portrayal of the character.  Perhaps one author wrote her as independent and another one wrote her as clingy.  This would definitely be a big project, encompassing films and books and probably more.  Like I said about Duck Soup, offline resources may need to be involved.  Nobody said editing was easy. :)
 * Replied there. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Happy New Year, Asyndeton! Given our vast banter in the past and your vast contributions to the Film Wikiproject, I thought I could solicit your help and advice. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them: If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and, again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
 * 2) Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

By the way, I finally got around to adding that section to the Bourne Ultimatum's page that we were talking about. To see that section, click here. The section probably needs more work, though, so if you see ways for that section to be improved, please don't hesitate to do so. :) — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I'd be happy to give you my opinion on them; I'm really quite flattered that you've asked me to look over them. I should have the chance to do it in a couple of hours or so and then I'll be able to tell you what I think of them. I only hope I can be of help to you, since I haven't really done this before. Where would you like me to post my comments, on your talk page or the articles'? asyndeton   talk  22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can post your comments at all three: here at my talk page, at the article's talk pages, and at the peer review pages. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd love to do it as well. The Star Wars series of movies happens to be one of my all time favorites, so I'd love to look at them. ~ Bella   Swan  23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my opinion. I had no idea I was so highly esteemed. Most of the time I get yelled at for reverting people's ridiculously long plot additions. I've already gone through Duck Soup and left some comments on the talk page as well as some edits in the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like I may have to let you down on the Leia review front; I'm fairly busy in real life and so I don't think I'll be able to find the time. Sorry. asyndeton   talk  17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do know. In fact, I almost always do that.  But in this case, I'm copying relevants made by other editors to the appropriate peer review pages, in which case I do not want to claim those contributions as my own.  Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you love it when robots talk to you? And don't you love answering them? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I've already notified slakr about it. :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peer reviews
Sure thing. Hopefully I can get to it this week. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, did you try searching for keywords in Google Books? Google Scholar is more for academic papers, and I don't think that there would be that many papers about Duck Soup.  If you try Google Books, you could get a preview of the relevant pages to cite in the article instead of having to get the book yourself. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey-hey-hey! Thanks for the help. Here's a source  I've found already. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And another... — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More . — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Still more ! — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An Evening with Groucho
You must read this, if you didn't know about it already. It's a transcript of Groucho's concert at Carnegie Hall, ca. 1972. I have the vinyl LP somewhere. It's a priceless window into Groucho's head as well as the era from which he came. And it (or at least the record) is a good source for "Groucho said..." Specifically, in the section called "My Family, How We Got Our Names", he says, "Harpo played the harp, that was pretty obvious. Chico was what they used to call a chicken chaser. In England now they call them birds, which is the equivalent of a chicken chaser in America fifty years ago. He did very well with that, too. Zeppo was born when the Zeppelin arrived at Lakehurst, New Jersey. He had nothing to do with the arrival. My other brother Gummo - it's not his real name, his real name was...eh...was Milton. It seemed like such a silly name, and we used to call him Gumshoes, because somebody had given him a pair of rubbers. In a nice way, I mean. And that's his name: Gummo Marx. My name, of course, I never did understand." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being so late in my response, but my schedule is getting increasingly busier. And besides, the Wikistress was starting to get to me, what with my resolution to help the Duck Soup article meet the good article criteria.
 * About An Evening with Groucho: Thank you for providing that link, as I hadn't read that before.  It was quite fascinating to see the famous interviewer and talk show host Dick Cavett giving the introduction; I'd always known that he has possessed a great appreciation and respect for Groucho, and in that transcript it really shows. It also stirs up a feeling of regret, too, 'cause I haven't been able to catch The Dick Cavett Show on TV for at least a year!
 * I've always enjoyed songs like "Lydia the Tattooed Lady" and "Hello, I Must Be Going!", so glancing over the lyrics again always brings a smile. :)
 * About the funny stories concerning Greta Garbo, Samson and Delilah, and the priests—I'd already read them before in Simon Louvish's bio of the Brothers and in excerpts from Glenn Mitchell's Encyclopedia; and yet, unsurprisingly, those stories still are just as fresh!
 * Finally, I don't doubt that Groucho knew about the true origins of his nickname. There have been plenty of stories concerning it, and, although there's no doubting Groucho's brilliance as a comedian, we all know he wasn't a particularly nice man. (Harpo, everyone agrees, was, but not Groucho.)  Groucho was always dubbed the moodiest of the Brothers, and I really believe that's why Julie was given the name Groucho, because of his grouchy disposition. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the stories were old even to the audience, but it was always fun to hear him tell them. What's missing from that transcript is audience reaction: laughter, applause, etc. When Groucho said, "My name, of course, I never did understand," he got a good laugh. Obviously, regardless of the supposed origin of the name, it seemed to fit his sarcastic sense of humor. One of my favorite spots, which I used to play for my late father every year, and which didn't fit my dad at all, was his "Father's Day" bit. He said, "I have a friend in Hollywood... I think I do, I'm not sure." [laughter] "His name is Harry Ruby." [lots of applause] Then he sings the Father's Day song and gets lots of laughs and applause. Groucho was really sounding old on the LP, and when he said, "I hardly exist anymore," he wasn't kidding. He sang the Father's Day song on the Cavett show a few years before, when he was sounding better, and of course it got a huge laugh then, too. Groucho was razor-sharp at that time. One time he was talking about his upbringing. Cavett remarked, "I understand they're tearing down your old neighborhood now." Groucho came back with, "This is not a coincidence, you know!" Big laugh. That could have been rehearsed, but this wasn't: Groucho was talking about his long-departed father, and suddenly there was a crash from somewhere offstage, somebody dropping some equipment or something, and immediately Groucho said, "There he goes now!" Huge laugh. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many times in Marxian comedy, the key element was this: It's not just funny because the dialogue is funny, it's funny because of who is saying it. Groucho often made lines that were not essentially funny actually come off that way; reading some of his dialogue on paper without envisioning Groucho in your mind doesn't help much.  It's all in the delivery.  For example, remember Groucho's defense of Chico in Duck Soup: "Gentleman, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you—he really is an idiot!" Imagine anybody else getting a laugh with that line! :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A typical Groucho non-sequitor which makes a surreal leap. It reverses the obvious comment, that he's not an idiot, and instead carries the assumption that someone might act like an idiot just to fool someone, except Chicolini is not trying to fool anyone, because he really is an idiot. (An assumption continued from Prof. Wagstaff's comment to Baravelli in Horse Feathers, "Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out?") It's true of many actors, when the scripts are written with the actor in mind, coming of as "something they would say". Groucho, in fact, used to complain that he couldn't actually insult anyone, because when he did, the target just assumed he was being funny. An oft-quoted Groucho comment was, "Now, that's the nastiest remark I've ever heard." Not funny at all, unless you put the Groucho twist on it, "Now, that's the nastiest remahk I've evuh hoid!" Then it's sort-of funny. One of my favorite Bugs Bunny lines is another non-sequitor which Groucho could have uttered, as it makes no sense on close examination: his remark to the scientist in Hair-Raising Hare, in which he goes through this schtick of packing as if to go to California, and then says, "And don't think it hasn't been a little slice of heaven... 'cause it hasn't!"Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Groucho did first utter that joke from Hair-Raising Hare. Bugs, of course, was known to imitate Groucho on more than one occasion: in fact, in Hair-Raising Hare, he did Groucho's famous "duck-walk" throughout that cartoon.
 * Chico, of course, is the only real competition Groucho ever gets. While talking with Chico, Groucho finally reaches the level of exasperation that he dishes out to other people; Groucho always tries his darndest to get the upper-hand on Chico, who then responds with a wheezy play-on-words with his patently-phony Italian accent, leaving Groucho scrambling to one-up Chico again.  Chico really the believes the only response to "viaduct" is "Alright, why-a-duck? Why-a no chicken?"  I get the feeling this sort of thing would continue forever if Harpo or Zeppo didn't drop by and interrupt them.
 * BTW, one of my favorite lines from Groucho is one he said to Chico directly after the "co-ed and 2 pair of pants" joke from Horse Feathers: "Baravelli, you've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it!" — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In which film did Groucho say that line that Bugs said in Hair-Raising Hare? Some of the Marx films, I have not seen in decades. Looks like I've got some catching-up to do. You're right, Chico's character, the supposed fool, drives Groucho's character nuts. So whether he's playing the fool, or really is the fool, either way it's the same result. Of course, Harpo's character is so surreal he can drive both of them nuts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'know what? I don't even remember myself! I'll have to review my copies of the MB films when I get the chance, although I think that quote was from Room Service.  You are correct in your analysis of Chico's on-screen persona.  Chico's onscreen character is also often similar to his own real life lifestyle, as you have often noted. Chico's affinity for the ladies and the gambling halls often got him into trouble both on and off screen, but he was admittedly as good a businessman as was his big screen character—after all, it was Chico who saved the Brothers's screen career by suggesting a move to MGM after a card game with Irving Thalberg.  Chico's and Harpo's relationship on film is particularly delightful.  Chico thinks that Harpo is the fool, that his instructions to Harpo actually have meaning in keeping his silent partner on track.  But Harpo is obviously smarter than he seems:  The guy can a play a harp—that's no small feat!  And, as you note, it's ultimately Harpo who leaves his antagonists in shambles by simply toying with them until their sanity leaves.  Thus, Harpo could easily get by without Chico, but he decides to keep it to himself, and their scenes are very satisfying the way they play out. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Marxes and religion
I think Groucho, at least, identified with being Jewish, not especially as religion, but as culture or ethnicity, as is often the case with Jews. Like the remark he made once about the Marxes just being "four Jews trying to get a laugh". He told a story in his Carnegie Hall concert about one guy walking with another, one of them was hunchbacked; the one said, "Did you know I used to be Jewish?" and the other one said, "Did you know I used to be a hunchback?" Some Jewish comedians (or comedians that were Jewish) made a thing of it, many didn't. There wasn't much, and maybe nothing, on-screen about the Judaism of the Marxes, or Jack Benny, or George Burns (whose wife was Irish) or the Three Stooges. However, some entertainers have fed on it, such as Woody Allen, Jackie Mason and Allan Sherman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That page also confirms a certain "spirituality" of the other Brothers:


 * [During the summer of 1929,] Chico, his wife Betty and Maxine were staying in Lake George, New York and looked in at a nearby hotel. The assistant manager, embarrassed, explained that the hotel did not admit Jews. Maxine, who had never before experienced such attitudes, was doubly confused owing to her father's otherwise sought-after status. Chico summed up the matter briefly: "There are some stupid people who don't like Jews. We don't need that hotel." Harpo seems to have been the most theologically inclined of the brothers, recording in his memoirs disgust at an anti-religious play he had seen in Russia, non-specific belief in a greater power and, on his death, leaving his harp to Israel. The usual whispering game metamorphosed this story into a quite untrue variant, to the effect that Gummo had been buried there. For Groucho, his lack of faith in life after death was confirmed by an understanding he had made with Chico and Harpo, in that whoever died first would, in the event of an afterlife, make every effort to contact those remaining on earth. "So far I have not heard from them" he said later. Groucho's consciousness of his Jewish identity, though presumably a matter of heritage alone, was extremely strong: On hearing of the Israeli massacre at the 1972 Olympics, Groucho was so shocked that he actually suffered a stroke, forcing the postponement of his Los Angeles stage show from September to December.


 * You learn something new everyday, as they say. BTW, I think I used that excerpted passage from The Marx Brothers Encyclopedia to cite a previously -tagged statement concerning Harpo willing his famous harp to Israel, but I, at the moment, am unsure whether I did or not. I'll have to give his page another look. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 01:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did. Good-bye, Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo and Gummo; and thank you. Rest in peace. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See here for more discussion about this topic. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Monkey Businessmen
Thank you for moving the citations in Monkey Businessmen behind the periods. Greatly appreciated! Oanabay04 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob! I've been a fan of the Three Stooges myself since I was a little kid, so I'm glad to help out whenever I can. ;^) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I broke down and got the new DVD that is remastered, so to speak, and is in chronological order, their first couple of years' worth of work. It's great stuff. I don't know the Stooges that well overall, though. Do you recall which film it was that they were brought in to be plumbers and ending up nearly tearing the house down? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's A Plumbing We Will Go, which stars Curly as the third Stooge. And thanks for joining the Animation Wikiproject as a supporter! It looks like the project is starting to grow! — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be the one! And according to the text, one of their "quissential" films. Oy! That will probably be on their third or fourth DVD, whenever it comes out. I saw it in a theater once. Great stuff. Regarding animation, I'm not sure what a "supporter" is supposed to do (be a cheerleader, maybe?) but I reckon I'll find out. One more thing about the Stooges, and other Hollywood location-films in general, is that they sometimes capture long-demolished buildings... such as ballparks and stadiums, which are a special interest of mine. The football scenes in Three Little Pigskins, for example, take place in the then-brand-new and now-long-gone Gilmore Stadium. I wonder where the football scenes in Horse Feathers were shot? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as filming locations for Horse Feathers is concerned, this is all I could find for now. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! Excellent. The Occidental College article also has a list. But it seems like the college has been virtually rebuild since Horse Feathers was filmed there. At some point in the film Groucho says "tomorrow we start tearing down the college." I guess they took him literally. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello All - I created most of the pages for all 190 Three Stooges shorts. I have been adding to them whenever possible (with books in hand to add the appropriate references ! :-) ). Please feel free to add to the entries. I am hoping to have a super, comprehensive filmography for the Stooges, and then eventually, Our Gang. Again, thanx to all! Oanabay04 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! The Stooges are a rather unappreciated and unrecognized comedy team in comparison to others, but I'm very happy to see that you and your fellow associates have been working on articles related to the team.  As I said before, I greatly admire the Stooges and their knack for physical comedy.  Y'know, the day they released the fifth Looney Tunes Golden Collection I was a little torn, since the new Three Stooges DVD was released at the same time; unfortunately, I've not been able to get my hands on either yet. :-/ — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I received both items for the holidays as well, and it is very difficult to choose between the two. PHEW! I thought it was just me. Oanabay04 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No question the Stooges are underappreciated. I think it's snobbery on the part of the critics. If you compare them with Laurel and Hardy, whom the critics love (and justifiably), a lot of times L & H do the same kind of stuff. I gained a new appreciation for the Stooges when they were being run on AMC for awhile. The films were shown with a degree of awareness instead of blindly... like running an episode which has Curly doing a bit where he's trying to bake a cake... and then another episode where Shemp is doing the exact same schtick, serviceably enough but not nearly as funny as Curly's. Then there was the one with the 100 steps to climb, similar to Laurel & Hardy's classic about the piano, and every bit as funny. And then there was the TV-movie produced by Mel Gibson, that showed their human side. They were very nice, gentle souls in real life... and deserved a lot more good things than they got, although they seldom complained. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True. In reality, the Stooges were undoubtedly both influenced by and influencing their contemporaries. For example, you can clearly see similarities between the Stooge short Boobs in Arms and the Abbott and Costello landmark Buck Privates, including a few of the routines.  Costello himself seems to have picked up some things from Curly Howard, and vice versa—not to mention that Shemp appeared in a few A&C films, too.  A young Lou Costello can be seen in the audience during a fight scene from The Battle of the Century, and the Three Stooge short you're referring to deliberately alluded to L&H's The Music Box, going so far as being shot only a few blocks away from that original staircase!  Curly himself referenced the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup in one of the You Nazty Spy! shorts. Still, there are some that cringe at the very mention of the Three Stooges, dismissing them as nothing but rag-a-muffin, slap-happy misfits.  If that were so, how have they achieved so much fame for the last near 75 years?  Maybe those critics like their comedy more refined?  I dunno, but I can tell you this:  The Stooges have lasted for the last 75 years because they were funny. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, if I remember correctly, the Three Stooges article states that, sometime in late 2007, there was to be a massive DVD release of colorized Stooges shorts by Legend Films. While I have the first wave from a few years ago (which includes Sing a Song of Six Pants, Malice in the Palace, and my own personal faves, Disorder in the Court and Brideless Groom), so far I've not heard or seen anything else concerning such.  Were those DVDs ever released? Also, the last time I saw the Stooges on television was about one year ago, on Spike TV, during a certain holiday break—in contrast to my childhood, when the Stooges were featured on at least two or three different channels and run frequently.  Are there any plans to bring the show back to mainstream television? — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed that unsourced info concerning Legend Films' 2007 Stooge DVD release from the Three Stooges article, as that year is now gone and I've heard nothing of the sort. Feel free to re-add it with a reliable source, though. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Marx / Stooge crossover: The second Stooge DVD came out recently, and I got to see We Want Our Mummy for the first time in decades. Early in the film, the three walk into the museum curator's office wearing goofy masks and wigs. They spin 180 degrees, and it turns out the masks were on the backs of their heads - a schtick identical to that pulled by Harpo and Chico Marx a few years earlier in Duck Soup - and which suggests to me the gag is probably a lot older than that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The next Stooge DVD is already out!? OK, I know what I'm going to have put on my list! : ) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it came out on May 27. The Three Stooges Collection, Volume Two: 1937-1939 has no specials, so that allows more room for the films, 24 of them on the two DVDs (there were only 19 on the first set). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! That gives me some time to get my hands on it before the sixth Looney Tunes DVD collection comes out later this fall&mdash;if I don't get my hands on it before then, though, I will admittedly be torn, once again. :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooooo - I had not even thought of that! Good catch. The fact that Curly refers to the skinny boxer in Grips, Grunts and Groans as "duck soup" as well tells me the Stooge writers liked the Marxes. Nice catch! We Want Our Mummy is, to me, is a Curly Howard tour de force.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be a coincidence. "Duck soup" used to be a very common expression for "a cinch" or something easy to do. I worked with someone from Thailand who liked to use that expression. But the Marxes and the Howards-and-Fine were all children of vaudeville, and I'm sure they "borrowed" from each other and other vaudevillians a great deal. I might have mentioned before, that Three Little Pigskins borrows some bits from Horse Feathers, such as tackling the ball-carrying referee. Both teams were great in their own way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose the Marxes are held in somewhat higher esteem because of a degree of intellectualism that some see in their work - although I'm not sure they themselves saw it that way. I think one of them said they were "just four Jews trying to get a laugh." The same could be said of the Stooges (three Jews trying to get a laugh) except there was no accusation of intellectualism in the Stooges, it was pure dumb slapstick. But they did it so well. It's amazing to watch them at their best, as in the first two DVD series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of an actual Marx Brothers-Three Stooges crossover is one of those tantalizing might-have-beens. One could only imagine what kind of comic destruction these guys could caused together! :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of crossovers, recently three of my favorite comedians of the day joined together for a hilarious mock fight. I could easily see the influence of the Stooges in this particular fight, which was nothing but pure slapstick humor &mdash; maybe not exceptionally witty, but explicitly funny, and that, in the end, is all that matters.  :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 17:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud was quite possibly the greatest stroke of genius that occured during the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Absolute, crazy brilliance.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup
Hey there - I will take a look at Duck Soup but I am not sure what else I can add the the footnotes. I only know the basics. I will give it a shot, though. Thanx for the vote of confidence! Oanabay04 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks! Perhaps, when you're through reading the article, you could leave some comments about it, too.  It'd greatly be appreciated.  Thanks again, in advance! Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

McCarty or McCarthy?
It's both. It's a continuity or script mistake. See Talk:Horse Feathers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disorder in the Court
How familiar are you with this Stooges classic? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite a bit, given that the film is included in several of my collections of the Stooges films; however, that's probably because Disorder in the Court is in the public domain. I can barely get by buying any Three Stooges DVD without having Disorder on it. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Any insight into that weird throwaway comment by Curly, "Oh, vigh sigh, kid" or whatever it was? Some guy insisted on posting that. It's audible and makes no apparent sense, but the only references I can find to it are apparently spinoffs from this site. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To be frank, no&mdash;I don't really no anything about it at all, though I've often wondered about its meaning. The closed captioning on my DVD version of this short proves no help in this matter&mdash;it doesn't even bother to try to put this enigmatic bit on screen. I'll surf the Web and see what I can find out about the line, though. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 01:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find anything besides self-refferences to this article, good luck. The poster who insisted on putting it there made vague references to a couple of sites, but I couldn't find it there. I wondered if it was some obscure Yiddish phrase, or pig Latin or something. Doesn't really sound like pig Latin anyway. Meanwhile, Moe's comment just ahead of that is just about as obscure. After they destroy some guy's toupee, he says, "I'll sue you!" Then Moe says, "Oh, superstitious, eh?" If that's supposed to be a play on "sue", it's pretty lame. But I can't help wondering if the "vigh sigh" comment connects with that somehow. Unfortunately, Moe has been dead for 33 years, so we can't really ask him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I should mention that it's really funny stuff. We've talked about Marx / Stooge crossover, and there was a line I recognized from a Marx film. And of course I can't think of it just now. The important thing, though, is that I keep reading that Moe and Curly's parents were in the jury, but I can't find them. Have you tried? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After taking a look at the Disorder in the Court Wikipedia page, it recommended going to stoogeworld.com for further discussion of Curly Howard's "Oh, vigh sigh, kid!" line. I did so, and stumbled upon this discussion at that fansite. The original poster suggests that we're interpreting it wrong, and that Curly is saying, "Vice eye, kid", in response to Moe Howard's line to the toupee-wearing guy, "Oh, superstitious, eh?" The guy offers a lot of hypotheses to the meaning of Curly's enigmatic aside—such as it being "vernacular", which of course Curly decided not to drop—but, as he admits, he's not been able to back it up as of yet. Interesting hypothesis, though, I must admit. BTW, Curly and Moe's parents are sitting rather close to each other in the front row. You can see the Howards' glasses-wearing father reacting rather happily while watching Gail dance—only to turn away when another woman (I think, the Howards' mother) sitting nearby looks at him in disgust. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I was also thinking that it sounded like it could be "vice eye". They may be onto something. I'm sure it meant something to its audience. As for the other, I found it:


 * Moe: I say, Jasper, what comes after seventy-five?
 * Larry: Seventy-six!
 * Moe: That’s the Spirit! (clink shotglasses together)

Was that in any way connected with the script? I'm thinking not, but you can correct me on that. Now, for extra credit, what does that little exchange remind you of? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah! That makes me think of Groucho Marx's opening monologue in Horse Feathers, where, after making quite a few seriously satirical comments about education, he asks the student body:
 * "Any questions? Any answers? Any rags? Any bones? (singing) Any bottles today? Any rags-- (quits singing, bangs gavel on table) Let's have some action around here! Who'll say 76? Who'll say 1776? That's the spirit! 1776!"
 * Given that Disorder was released in 1936, and Horse Feathers in 1932, it seems perfectly plausible that the Stooges may have indeed "borrowed" that joke from the Marxes. But then again, "all great minds think alike". . . :-) Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, you're onto it. Three points about Moe and Larry's comment: (1) It seemed to be totally disconnected from the script, but I would have to watch it again to be sure; (2) It was delivered exactly the way a vaudeville hack would deliver that corny joke, they were making fun of their vaudeville roots, and their delivery would have made perfect sense to their audience, and it also indicates how old that joke must be; and (3) yes, Groucho made the same joke in that opening speech, which I think was actually, "Who'll say 6? Who'll say 76? That's the 1776!" That, along with the gavel, was imitating an auctioneer (a role he had played in The Cocoanuts). Now, for extra-extra credit, do you have any notion what the rags and bottles comment is about? I think I do. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, no, I don't. I've often thought this "rags and bottles" comment to be a somewhat sarcastic mention of a song by Irving Berlin, given that (according to Groucho, at least) the song he wrote for The Cocoanuts was the only song of Berlin's that did not become a hit. :) Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, please enlighten me about the Berlin song it could refer to. I'll tell you what I know about it, which opens a whole different can of worms, into a time when black people were de facto second class citizens and had no political clout. It has to do with minstrel shows and so-called "coon songs", i.e. songs sung by white people about, and/or pretending to be, stereotyped black people. In this particular case, I'm talking about a 1903 recording by famous "coon song" recording star Arthur Collins, called "Any Rags?" I've heard that song before, and I think the Marx comment is taken from it. Unlike Groucho's upbeat rendition, Collins' song is sung in a very slow, melancholy style. The "ragman" was typically a black man who would go around the neighborhood collecting bits of junk from people, to eke out a meager living by selling or trading them to recyclers: rags, bones, bottles, whatever; usually crying, "Any ra-ags?" as per the Collins song. This writeup, to which I just added these comments in digest form, talks about it like it were a British phenomenon, but it was American also. This all comes vaguely close to home, as my Mom used to tell me that in her youth, her own Mom would scare her or her siblings by saying if they didn't behave, they would be given to the Rag Man. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. You learn something new everyday, as they say. :)
 * BTW, since we're on the subject of the Marx Brothers, I thought I might as well remind you of Duck Soups good article candidacy&mdash;of which we will, by morning time today, know whether or not you and mine and Ed's efforts have been "good" enough. Whatever happens, I've enjoyed our collaboration on that article, and relish the fact that we have developed an engagingly well-researched, well-written, well-sourced Wikipedia entry for users and fans—and that's no small accomplishment. Cinemaniac' (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 03:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And then some IP-address vandal will trash the article tomorrow. >:( Well that's show biz. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One funny bit in Horse Feathers is the "pun-within-the-pun" joke during the "swordfish" routine, and I apologize if this is redundant:
 * Groucho: I got it - haddock!
 * Chico: At's-a funny, I got a haddock too.
 * Groucho: What do you take for a haddock?
 * Chico: Sometimes I take an aspirin, sometimes I take a calomel.
 * Groucho: I'd walk a mile for a calomel!

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just saw your changs to "Swordfish (password)". You're way ahead of me. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added that whole "swordfish" scene to Swordfish (password), which I had no idea was able to warrant its own article. And why not? It's a memorable scene from one of the Brothers' most memorable films. Regarding my edits to the "Swordfish" page, I think I've actually been able to incorporate almost all of the puns, although I'll confess up front that I've never been able to get the "Mary drinks like a fish" joke. Must be one of the more dated references. :-) Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 03:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The expression "drinks like a fish" you've probably heard, i.e. someone who's a drunkard, but why "Mary", I have no idea. Either a now-obscure reference, or an inside joke. That's how authors make money writing volumes about pop culture whose references don't make sense anymore. "Alice in Wonderland" is like that. It's loaded with Victorian England references that its audience "got" but which have to be explained to the modern audience (and no, I wasn't around then). :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, as you probably already know by now, Duck Soup has yet to achieve Good Article Status. The reviewer evidently still has a few issues with the article and has left a few notes at the article's discussion page. You can join the conversation by following the previous link or by clicking here here. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

re: GAC
Thanks. I read through Duck Soup last night (wow I need to see this film). The only big change I'd suggest that hasn't already been discussed is the use of bold in the section discussing some of the set pieces: I don't think the bold is necessary. Other than that, I think the article looks great. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great, indeed. But is it "Good"? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, FuriousFreddy, for your positive comment and for the suggestion. So far, despite the issues we've had over the last week or so with the reviewer—e.g., why bullets can't be used, why it matters to have the character names in bold, etc.—I think the article does meet the good article criteria; again, all the article needs is a few more images. Whether or not it actually does, however, we should know pretty soon. :-) Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An illustration from the mirror scene would be excellent, provided the FU deletionists don't zap it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided the URL to a Google Image Search for screenshots of the mirror scene here, at the article's talk page. However, I'm not sure I know how to upload an image yet, and the Fair Use requirements discourage me to upload it any way. I hope that either I'll eventually find the guts to upload an image, or that someone else will do the same. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just attempted to upload this image of the mirror scene several times, but, for some reason, I kept on getting a "file error" message. Knowing me, I probably got the "source filename" and the "destination filename" mixed up again, but at least I tried. Does anybody else mind taking a whack at it? Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, this evening, unless someone beats me to it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded and inserted into the article images of the mirror scene, the war song and the vendor scene with Edgar Kennedy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and nice work! The article looks so much better now with those pics. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Now just hope the deletionists don't get hold of them. Also, does anyone have the I Love Lucy DVD that would have this episode? Assuming it's even on DVD? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to IMDB, it's episode #125 (season 4, episode #27), originally broadcast 9 May 1955, so it should be on this or this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucy probably personally asked for Harpo to appear, I'd say. I know she liked and indentified the most with Harpo&mdash;and it's hard to argue with that. I can remember seeing that episode, too&mdash;it was a great homage to that scene. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucille Ball had a lot of pull in the industry. There weren't too many woman running production companies in those days. She appeared in an early Three Stooges film, you know. I saw a quote that, "The only thing I learned from the Three Stooges was how to duck!" But she could do physical comedy also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duck Soup
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Duck Soup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Thelb 4 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I've been able to iron out all the kinks you noticed in the article, save the final subsection of the "Soundtrack" section, but I'm sure I (or somebody else) can rectify that within time. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 19:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup GA failed
Hi. I'm sorry I had to fail Duck Soup's GA Nomination. I realize that, in that I became somewhat embroiled as my edits were reverted by the article's other major contributor, you may believe that I have lost some distance. In which case, I do encourage you to put the article up for Good Article Review, where other GA reviewers can have a look at it. Obviously, the article's had a rather long and complicated journey through the GA process: I started looking at it precisely because it was by some distance the article that had been waiting longest for a review. It is unfortunate if this complicated journey has turned major contributors off the process. I do think that the most important issue is that further research is required. Some reliable sources are cited, but not as many as should be, especially given the amount that has been written about the film. Any issues of style and format are really secondary. Good luck with it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right in stating that Duck Soups journey through the GA process was "rather long and complicated"; I entered the article for GA candidacy almost two whole months ago&mdash;back in early February&mdash;and the article itself was reviewed by three or four different editors before a verdict was finally passed. I do want to thank you, though, for finally making a decision&mdash;it was getting sort of tiresome waiting to see if it would get passed or not. I must admit, however, that I have emerged somewhat disheartened by this outcome.  I'm not saying that your decision was a sign of haste or misjudgment; matter of fact, I blame myself somewhat for the article's GAN failure, as I wasn't able to really able to edit Duck Soup for nearly a month due to the disastrous crash of my hard drive.  It was during those few weeks when the article could have been improved significantly, but I wasn't able to get around to it, and for that, I apologize. I do want you to know, though, that I will consider putting Duck Soup up for Good article reassessment, so that we can get other reviewers' guidance on how the article could be improved.  Thanks, again! Cinemaniac' (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think it would be a good idea putting the article up for WP:GAR. NB though, I notice that many of the suggestions made at peer review have not been taken up.  Some of them are things that I realize I was simply echoing (e.g. the lack of off-ling source, the triviality of the "Influences" section).  You had a lot of feedback there, and it would have been good to have taken it all into account, working methodically through the suggestions, before putting the article up for GAN.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I now realise that my nomination of the article for GA might have been a bit hasty, but then again, I've had no prior experience with the GA process. I'll certainly learn from this undertaking, however. Thanks again for your critique and encouraging thoughts. :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:A Day at the Races Femme Fatale.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:A Day at the Races Femme Fatale.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Taken care of. &mdash; Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Cocoanuts hotel lobby.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:The Cocoanuts hotel lobby.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Taken care of. &mdash; Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 03:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:A Day at the Races Femme Fatale.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:A Day at the Races Femme Fatale.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Cocoanuts hotel lobby.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Cocoanuts hotel lobby.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)