Talk:Fame (1980 film)

Incomplete plot

The plot for this movie is much more intricate than displayed here. Several major characters are not even mentioned in the plot summary. Someone who knows the plot well, please update.

Music by?

IMO this article ought to mention the composer(s) and lyricist(s) of the songs in the musical. If someone has the knowledge, I for one would appreciate an update of this article. Wempain 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Such information should be (and is) in the article about the musical, Fame (musical). This is about the film and should not be overloaded with details about the musical or the TV shows. Otto4711 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant the film as a musical film. Fame (musical), which I've never heard, seems to be based on this film, but has mostly different songs than the film. Wempain 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong factual information about 'Fame' high schools - here is the correction

The film follows a group of students through their studies at the New York High School of Performing Arts (which later merged with the High School of Music and Art to become the Fiorello H. La Guardia High School of Music and Art and Performing Arts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.19.52 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Laura Dean linked

The Laura Dean in the film is not the Laura Dean linked to within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.204.169 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I de-linked her name. (There does not appear to be an article about the actor.) Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

disco?

genre -> disco -> ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.40.97.245 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fame (1980 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some possible issues

This Review is on hold until the possible issues found on Earwig's Copyvio Detector are discussed etc. There is a 75% score with afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspxs=&Movie=56407 the AFI article and a 90% score with alanparker.com/film/fame/making. Usually in these cases it is a matter of the other source mirroring WP or of an abundance of quotes appearing within the WP article. I am casting no aspersions here, just that this needs to be discussed on this Review page before I can proceed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have made attempts to shorten details on the article, as per your suggestions.FrankRizzo (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The above issues have been dealt with to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Just one spelling issue that was taken care of before I could even mention it here. Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead is good to go, layout is fine, didn't see any WP:PUFFERY - all looks good. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Referencing style is consistent. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Ran checklinks, statements are referenced, etc. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - looks good after nominator's fixes. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am going to do some more proofreading-readthroughs to catch any possible issues I might have missed. Pending any new problems, I should be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

   The timeline of the original movie and its subsequent projects is nicely laid-out and easy to understand. Going forward the only change I would think about would be to go through and adjust possible puffery words - for instance that Cara was propelled to "musical stardom" by the film, etc. Shearonink (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack cover

Let's not have that soudtrack cover in this article. WP:FILMMUSIC: "WikiProject Film consensus is against having cover images in the album infoboxes in the film article". This is a sound and enforceable interpretation of WP:NFCC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• As per your request, (talk ⋅ contribs), I will remove the soundtrack cover from the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The confusing ownership of the franchise from WB and MGM.

You know, I find it oddly fascinating about the whole Fame franchise. Warner Bros. owns the rights to the 1980 film under Turner Entertainment, yet Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer still has the rights to the rest of the franchise. This is another one of the reasons why Warner Bros. should've considered purchasing MGM instead of merging with Discovery. FlapjackRulez (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Please take casual discussion outside of Wikipedia. There's also the WP:RD if you want to talk about topics in a casual manner. Though I will say that according to WP:RS, Warner only owns the pre-1986 library, so they don't have access to the later films. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)