Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway

Technicolor

It's not really necessary to go into detail on this page as to how the Technicolor system worked, is it? The Technicolor page, to which this is linked to, does a good job of that already. The Photoplayer 05:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for doing this were not to change the Technicolor pages, which I had a scan through and although much improved contain points I would have liked to see clarified, so I enlarged information about the particular version of Technicolor used on the film just for this entry. The section needs removed, but I would be pleased to see the Technicolor entry enchanced with more of this detail a few points clarified and I would have to dig out far more references at the moment and don't have time.

Just some of these would things like:

• transfter process made underwater
• roller pressure used to force imbibition
• wash jets uised to control dye strength
• matices could be rewashed and reused
• printing was a continuous non stop process (reels printed in batches in sequence)
• print quality problems in 1930
• lack of definition due to dye spread
• discontent with quality (New York times hostile reviews - See review for 'Woman Hungry' as an example)
• The two color process did not use a key image (ref SMTPE minutes)
• The floating dye troughs were only used for cemented prints, the matrices were dyed in tanks (see Colour Cinematography - 1951 AB Klein)
• The taking filters were improved so they could be removed and replaced with different combinations for outdoor work to prevent a green sky being recorded.
• The print definition was improved in 1931, using combined improved processing methods ands a faster film.
• The price for a single feature contract was $50,000 non refundable.

Excellent points and I share your enthusiasm for adding this important information. If you could do me a favor and please post this on the Technicolor talk page as a "to do" list, I'd be ever so greatful (and I'm sure people would oblige by looking up the proper sources and then adding this information to the page. At that point, we can remove the information from here and add a "see Technicolor page for more information" note. The Photoplayer 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you. My main reason for not adding to the Technicolor page yet is that each point really needs to be properly referenced and it takes time to do that. The probem with Technicolor is that there isn't much written on the subject and recent books have muddied the waters. To provide more than a scant listing would involve a lot of careful and complex referencing. Most previous Internet attempts have concentrated on the camera mostly, but haven't menntioned much about the transfer machine. To prevent movie fans enthusiastically contesting information, citing authorative references might be the best answer. SMPTE articles are very useful in this regard as being written at that time. Klein's book 'Colour Cinematography' gives an incredibly detailed description of the transfer process. --Emitron1 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Girls Dancing

The Fairbanks Twins, Madeline & Marion

It seems that there is some debate as to if this picture:

...is from Gold Diggers of Broadway or from On with the Show. According the the Vitaphone Project website, it is (or at least, it's on the same spool as the other section of Gold Diggers of Broadway, I assume). I know of the guy who owns these clips, so I will email him and find out for sure which is where.

Which also comes to mind-- none of these clips have proper notation as to where they came from. Who was responsible for the content information? We'd better label them correctly before they're deleted. The Photoplayer 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All the clips bar one are from the recently found color nitrate. The Vitaphone site labelled the clip of the two girls as from 'Gold Diggers of Broadway. As a b/w print exists of 'On With the Show' exists and matches, it can be determined that this shot is from that film. --Emitron1 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which begs the question: was this on the Gold Diggers roll (and if so, why?). If it was on the Gold Diggers roll, do you think it's possible that perhaps this is a stock shot reused from On with the Show or vice versa? They have it labeled as the former, but this seems like an error on their part. The Photoplayer 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you make a very good point. The audience shots for both films (and Sally) are all photographed from the same session. It may have been a re-use of footage. However the sequence with Winnie Lightner and Albert Gran takes place away from the stage setting according to the soundtrack. The actual clip of the girls does appear just before the other dressing room shot in On With The Show so my guess is it wasn't labelled properly. :::--Emitron1 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. In speaking to the owner, it is from On with the Show. The Photoplayer 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just watched On with the Show again and your right it is there towards the end (it's a very short sequence). I just moved it to the right page. Thanks. Vitaphone 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this "talk" page, and find it somewhat amusing and equally curious that anyone who considers themselves moderately expert in both Vitaphone and musical films (and this excludes Emitron1) would be perplexed by the photograph's origin. More time spent viewing (and enjoying) these films would yield effortlessly gained knowledge, far more than just collecting and cataloging them in the same way one does stamps or baseball cards. The eccentric dance routine depicted is so unique, and the performers so unusual (twin girls,) that even a casual viewing or two of the film should have immediately identified the source at first glance of the photo. -Vitaphone1

Sign your statements with a ~~~~ four tilda signature next time.

The confusion was initiated by experts (the Vitaphone Project). While some of us were pretty sure that the clip was from On With the Show, there was no published source to proove that at face value. That is why (a) we rewatched the film and (b) asked the owner. Now those particular evidences may be used as sources. The Photoplayer 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know signatures had to manually added, but thanks for your genteel reminder. Too bad this page didn't exist earlier than it did, as any confusion would have been cleared up straight off. I was the fellow who forwarded the frame grabs (courtesy of the owner) to Ron Hutchinson of The Vitaphone Project for inclusion in the newsletter and website, and I suppose the word "Show" threw him off, for it was misidentified in the printed newsletter as being from "The Show of Shows." The error was corrected, although not soon enough. All that aside, I suppose the only hard "evidence" anyone really needed to identify the still/footage was some degree of familiarity with "On With the Show," easily gained via a viewing or two. Jeff (vitaphone@aol.com) aka Vitaphone1 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the new additions to this "talk" page, and find it somewhat amusing and equally curious that anyone who considers themselves moderately expert (i.e. the so-called Vitaphone Project) in both Vitaphone and musical films (and this excludes Emitron1) would be perplexed by the photograph's origin. More time spent viewing (and enjoying) these films would yield effortlessly gained knowledge, far more than just collecting and cataloging them in the same way one does stamps or baseball cards. The eccentric dance routine depicted is so unique, and the performers so unusual (twin girls,) that even a casual viewing or two of the film should have immediately identified the source at first glance of the photo but the silly so called experts there pretend it is from "Gold Diggers of Broadway." I've been looking at the Vitaphone Project website and have been quite amused at the numerous mistakes and errors that these so-called experts have made. One wonders where the so-called donation money (that this website is seeking) is actually being spent on.Vitaphone 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The misidentification of the still in the Vitaphone Project newsletter was a typographical error. As to funding and allocation of private donations, I won't even qualify this with a comment other than to direct you to the portion of the web site that details titles that have been restored and preserved only because these funds exist. Then too, there's much to be said for people who have dedicated themselves to selflessly seeking out and rescuing material that might otherwise be lost, with the ultimate goal being that this material is made widely available and once again reintroduced to the general public. Sadly, there are those who look upon these films merely as ripe additions to their own personal collections, which they can then snatch up and sell, or use as trading fodder. Fortunately, the motives of these ghouls are always ultimately discovered. Always. Vitaphone1 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Feather dusters at 400 yards? I hope perhaps we can move away from denigrating other people's efforts. I only want to restore detail on this film and others for the good of everyone, so that we can have fewer film histories that proclaim talkies only got off the ground properly in about 1933. All of the early Vitaphone and Movietone films desperately need entries which inspire people in the 21st century to seek them out. There is much to be enjoyed from 1927 to 1932 and this is perhaps the most neglected period of film history. I'd think there are more silents out on DVD than earely talkies from this period! --Emitron1 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gdob6.jpg

Image:Gdob6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Technicolor, redux

An editor has been attempting to add Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation to the "studio" parameter field. I have been reverting this with an edit summary which points out that Technicolor was not a film studio or a production company, but the editor returns a few days later to re-insert it. I asked him on his talk page to stop, but he or she did not respond, as, indeed, they have not responded to anything on their talk page.

So, the question here is: should Technicolor be listed or not? Opinions? BMK (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor responded on my talk page to say that unless I was a "founder" of Wikipedia, I should "back off". I've asked them to make their argument here that Technicolor should be included in the studio parameter. BMK (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, IMDB doesn't list Technicolor at all, TCM lists them under "Color" as does AFI. In the early days of color, a Technicolor technician would be involved with the shooting, and since this is a very early color film, I have no doubt that was the case here. But that doesn't make Technicolor a "Production Company" or "Studio", it makes them a consultant. BMK (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

They're not a studio or a production company and shouldn't be treated as either. We wouldn't list Dolby as being either for a film using their sound technology, nor IMAX for a film shot with one of their cameras. I'd say remove it, keep it out, and if the editor in question continues to add it despite its clear factual invalidity, then treat them as any other instance of someone repeatedly adding blatantly false material to an article. GRAPPLE ^X 23:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

^^^What Grapple said. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am not among the founders of Wikipedia, but can confirm that Technicolor wasn't a studio, and thus can't have been the studio for this film. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

On a similar note, I see no evidence that Vitaphone should be in there either—it seems to be the same kind of thing, a licensed technology rather than a studio. GRAPPLE ^X 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little vague about the historical relationship between Warner Bros., First National and Vitaphone. Of course it all ended up being Warner Bros., but I don't know how it got there. I'll do a bit of research. BMK (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's clearer now. Warner Bros. and First National were separate studios, and Warners eventually bought out First National, keeping the brand for some period of time. Vitaphone was a sound process, invented by Western Electric, and owned by Warners. It should not be in the "studio" parameter either. BMK (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of citation need and failed verification tags for Technicolor section

@Beyond My Ken: You have now removed and tags three times without providing specific information on the source of the content. There is a single reference for both paragraphs in the Technicolor section [[1]], and that reference does not support the content. It was added by AVarchaeologist as the “best web cit” for a pre-existing unreferenced section that had previously been tagged as unsourced. I did not tag every sentence per your request when you removed the and tags since that is not standard Wikipedia practice See: Wikipedia:Citation needed:

Unless you have very good reason to suppose otherwise - it is fair to assume that a reference at the end of a paragraph refers to the whole paragraph, and a reference at the end of a sentence refers to the whole sentence. If your work has been tagged … If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the copyediting to someone else, or learn more about citing sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners provides a brief introduction on how to reference Wikipedia articles.

Here are the specifics you requested for regarding the first paragraph of the Technicolor section:

1. Sentence 1 – "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" not mentioned anywhere in the Technicolor History section of the cited URL.
2. Sentence 2 – can be extrapolated, but not all content is verified on the cited page.
3. Sentence 3 – set selection and costume color palettes are not mentioned in the reference section cited
4. Sentence 4 – film sensitivity (which you refer to as speed) and camera speed (I assume by which you mean the maximum aperture and per frame exposure duration), is not mentioned
5. Sentence 5 – “white on the matrix film and dye transfer problems” is not mentioned

You have a portion of one out of 5 sentences that is marginally supported by the one reference you cite. The entire paragraph is unsupported by the single reference. You need to specifically provide the source of the information or else it should be deleted. If you cannot provide something more specific as to the source of the content, then it constitutes original research and should be removed. N0TABENE (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. You've got 754 edits and you're certain you know what the Wikipedia "standard practice" is. I've got 145K+ edits and I'm not always certain what it is -- sometimes it's just whatever works best. In any case, you've provided a breakdown of your objections in a different way than I suggested, and that's really fine with me. Since I was the editor who re-wrote the section, using only the citation in question as a source, your analysis doesn't seem right to me, but I don't have the time at the moment to go through the paragraph with your comments in mind. Probably I'll have time to do so on Monday, my day off, so please hold off on taking any extreme action. There's nothing in the paragraph that's particularly inaccurate (as opposed to unsourced) so I see no reason to change anything for the moment - a few days isn't going to make any difference. BMK (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not the quantity but the quality of edits. Anyone can use a bot and fix 100,000's of extra spaces. And yes, I have only 754 edits ... under this account. I see you've had multiple other accounts - maybe other editors have had as well? I digress.... you've asked me to "please hold off on taking any extreme action", yet you deleted the tag without providing the requested source reference, and after being cautioned not to make changes unless adding missing references. You should have left the tag pending correction of the unsourced content. That alone warranted an escalation to a Level 3 or 4 Warning. Further, any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. I'm not sure why I should accede when you've been less than professional in this matter. Regards, N0TABENE (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the shit out of the paragraph, and every sentence (and sometimes parts of a sentence) is now sourced. I sincerely hope that you enjoyed your part in making the article less interesting and informative for our readers. Please have a pleasant future editing career. BMK (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I simply asked for appropriate citations of the content that you claim you PERSONALLY wrote, not a random URL. YOU wrote the material and decided on the content, if it's less interesting and less informative, then the fault lies with the writer. If you would have given the citations in the first place this could have been avoided. Suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Oh, and thanks, I have and I do, IRL N0TABENE (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Which poster for infobox?

There's a dispute about which poster should be in the infobox. Since both are non-free, they cannot be posted together here for side-by-side comparison, so please take a look at

• 1: File:GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg, which has been in the article, versus
• 2: File:Gold Diggers of Broadway poster.jpg, which was recently inserted.

BMK (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any difference between them. 79.18.120.178 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? One has a black background, and the other has a royal blue background. On one, "Warner Bros." is clipped at the top, on the other it isn't. BMK (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The editor needs to scroll down to see the 2/20/2014 version. The 12/5/2015 version matches the one recently uploaded. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's choice per his statement that it is "better resolution, better color". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, we may have been victims of a technical problem where new uploads don't update properly. Many people (maybe most, maybe all except me) are seeing the new uploaded image under the original filename. I am not, despite having purged my cache repeatedly. This is why I re-uploaded it under a new filename. BMK (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Opinions are still welcome, but I think the technical snafu has been ironed out. BMK (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections

Refimprove tags were added to sections that had no sourcing at all. Several of these were removed without explanation, or edit summary and without providing additional sources. Several failed verification tags were altered by the same user who deleted the section hatnotes, so that they were unreadable. This user has had a problem in the past with providing WP:verifiable sources. Either provide citations which have the information claimed in the text or the material should be deleted. Simply deleting properly placed tags is inappropriate. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 06:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your statements are incorrect. Plot sections in film articles are never sourced. The "Songs" section is sourced except for those that are marked as needing citations. Failed verification was approproaite only when there was a statementsaying that "all songts" were written by Burke & Dubin - it no longer says that. Now the songs by Burke & Dubin are distinctly marked, and the source of that is reffed. The songs which are not marked are marked as needing a citation. This is perfectly legitimate. BMK (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Use vs. utilize

@Beyond My Ken, care to explain your revert? czar 02:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the first dictionary I grabbed off my sefl (Webster's New World, Second College Ed., 1982) gives:

"use ... (1) to put or bring into action or service; employ for or apply to a given purpose..."

"utilize ... (1) to put to use or make practical use of; get profit or benefit from by using..."

So, when dealing with mechanical processes, such as color filming, "utilize" is the better choice, as it's specifically about making practical use of the process and gaining a benefit from doing so, as opposed to the more generalized "use". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)