Talk:Hairspray (2007 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Release Date

The poster shows July 20th but the info bar shows July 27th. Davi Williams 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporal and grammatical distortion

The article states:

"Hairspray is a film adaptation of the Broadway musical of the same name. The Broadway musical was made after the 1988 film"

"Ricki Lake, who played Tracy Turnblad in the 1988 version"

"More recently, Tony-award winner Marissa Jaret Winokur, who originated Tracy Turnblad in the Broadway version"

Winokur couldn't have "originated Tracy Turnblad in the Broadway version" if the character was played by Lake in a film version which preceded the Broadway version. She may have instantiated the character in the Broadway version.

I think that what you call grammatical distortion could simply be your lack of understanding of Broadway terminology. Ricki lake did not originate the role of Tracy Turnblad as we know her in the musical, but rather created the role in the film. That's like saying that Idina Menzel didn't originate the role of Elphaba or that Daphne Rubin-Vega didn't originate Mimi

194.46.237.10 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

==Possible "wink" to

Someone should describe the play/movie, so people who have never heard of it knows what it is about. andrew... 13:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Jerry Stiller is going to play Mr. Pinky and his original Role, Mr. Turnblad, will be taken on by Cristopher Walken. I think he is the only one to appear on both movies.

Ricki Lake is also in both movies. She played Tracy in the '88 film and has a cameo in the new one.  – AMK1211^talk! 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations to add to expand the article

Citations

1. Staff (14/06/2007). "Travolta slammed by gay rights over Hairspray". Irish Examiner. Thomas Crosbie Media 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Rush & Molly. "Travolta in 'Spray' revolts gays". New York Daily News. 2007 NYDailyNews.com. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Staff (June 13, 2007). "People: Hugo Rifkind". The Times UK. Times Newspapers Ltd. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Walls, Jeannette (June 12, 2007). "Will jailbird Paris campaign for chickens? Plus: Some gay fans want to can new 'Hairspray'". MSNBC. NBC. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. Naff, Kevin (Editor) (May 18, 2007). "When Scientologists attack: Gays should be wary of 'church' that has helped advance the reckless idea that homosexuality can be cured". Washington Blade. A Window Media LLC Publication. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. Davenport, Misha (June 1, 2007). "Sinful cinema, you say? Let's have nun of that". Chicago Sun-Times. Sun-Times News Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
7. Grover, Sally (June 13, 2007). "Gays Oppose John Travolta's "HairSpray"". All Headline News. 2007 by AHN Media Corp. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
8. Bruno, Mike (June 15, 2007). "NEWS ROUNDUP: Clarkson Postpones Summer Tour : Plus: Lost creators promise they won't end with an ambiguous Sopranos-style conclusion, McCartney's record hits No. 3, MTV launches green initiative, and more..." Entertainment Weekly. 2007 Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. Staff (June 15, 2007). "Travolta faces gay boycott over Scientology". National Nine News. 2007 ninemsn Pty Ltd, MSN. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
10. O'Reilly, Bill (June 19, 2007). "Travolta Boycott: A gay newspaper plans to boycott John Travolta's new movie: 'Hairspray'". The O'Reilly Factor. Fox News. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• These citations above satisfy WP:RS, this has been widely reported on in the press/media and the citations will be utilized to expand the article. Smee 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Discussion

I say put it in, but in a more neutral tone. Travolta slammed by gay rights... is very POV IMHO. Would it be possible to describe this as Travolta criticized by gay rights... instead. Slammed to me implies being crushed by the inarguable truth, until we see pictures of him and his boyfriend doing more than lip locking as they board/exit a plane or he admits it WP:BLP must be the standard by which we add info. (To be clear; controversy is ok as long as it's reported in a neutral tone.) Anynobody 08:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I had no intention of doing anything like that, just pulling information from the citations above to form a new subsection in this article. Smee 08:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I honestly didn't think so, for the most part. The inclusion in the heading though left a tiny bit of doubt in my mind. I don't mean to be presumptuous but I've removed it. (How would some of our Scientologist editors take this? "Travolta slammed by gay rights over Hairspray") Anynobody 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. I have no objections to the changed header. Smee 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

The last edit was an emergency measure to avoid undue misinterpretation. How would you feel about changing the title to something like Travolta criticized by gay rights..., so the readers know what we're talking about? (Again, I'm not saying you intended to make the tone like the headline. I'm guessing the point of my post is what it's original purpose was.) Anynobody 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way... Smee 08:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I'll leave it as is since I loathe changing others work on a talk page. Anynobody 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW the sources are outstanding, I think you can safely add info about the controversy on the basis of their strength. (I'm partial to sources that are linked.) Anynobody 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gays boycott movie

On O'Reilly last night, Bill was talking with Dennis Miller about this. The gay community is doing this because of John Travolta being a scientologist. --71.224.24.99 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• See the citations/news on this, in the subsection, above. Smee 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

The gay community has also had some issues since Travolta stated "there is nothing gay about Hairspray" [1]

Perhaps Hairspray doesn't specifically deal with gay issues, but we are talking about a film based on a camp classic directed and written by a gay man that looks at prejudice and self-acceptance. In some ways, the story of Hairspray has even greater relevance to gay audiences now. One of the storylines involves an interracial romance in the years before anti-miscegenation laws were repealed -- an issue LGBT people have been considering more of late. Additionally, Travolta's is taking on a role associated with two gay men, Divine and Harvey Fierstein.

A lot of this seems pretty manufactured to me. I heard none of this information in any news regarding the film. The whole section feels like a backhanded way of trying to go after Travolta, especially to name it "Travolta Controversy". Is this truly relevant to the film itself, or is this just a few people's attempt to color a wikipedia entry to suit their political views? Honestly, who cares if the actors who played Edna in the past were gay? Travolta was cast for his musical talent, BY a gay man. This whole section seems incredibly silly and petty to me.--71.60.82.125 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, whoever was talking about it being a role played by gays and written by a gay man, you might need to reread the whole paragraph. The director, Adam Shankman, is openly gay. This is so ridiculous; stop being so sensitive, people. 129.7.254.33 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian Release

i am not sure but when i went ot the movies yesterday (11 July 2007) i saw a poster with hairspray on it with the whole you know inforation thing at the bottom but without a release date, so... although i KNOW it was hairspray, but is it almost possible to say it might be released in the cinemas instead of on TV like High School Musical?Australian Jezza 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast List

Is it standard to list previous film roles after the actors name in a cast list? That does not seem like a great policy - for example why would you list Grease for John Travolta instead of Pulp Fiction? If no one can provied a guiding philosophy within a week, I intend to remove the references to previous movies. 207.69.137.35 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not standard. It's actually against Wikipedia standards, and has been removed. --FuriousFreddy 16:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

References to other Waters films

I have removed the references to other John Waters films as they have nothing to do with this movie. 209.247.22.166 12:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you haven't seen Waters' other films and don't understand how a family-friendly production like Hairspray could have evolved from his previous work, doesn't mean references in the 2007 Hairspray film doesn't have anything to do with this movie. I've put this section back. The simple fact is, this is probably the first film that's ever gone from movie to Broadway and back to a movie again, and it's important that readers of encyclopedic articles know that Hairspray '07 features elements of Hairspray '88 and Waters' previous very family un-friendly work. Plus, you're not even a registered user. FoamParty 04:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • One more thing... I'm not going around erasing the completely ridiculous film connections section on this page, which is completely unnecessary and is the section that really has nothing to do with this film. Waters' previous non-family friendly film work is very influential in elements of every Hairspray production every produced. Who worked with who in movies that had nothing to do with the writers, directors, or any other creative talent that shaped the film and Broadway productions of Hairspray certainly are more irrelevant. But because I'm making a case for this section staying relevant, I'll refrain from deleting that trivial section. FoamParty 05:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You state, "this is probably the first film that's ever gone from movie to Broadway and back to a movie again." What about The Producers????? You also say, "Just because you haven't seen Waters' other films . . ." Who says I haven't??? You are trying to compare this film to other Waters' films as if there is a connection to them, which there isn't. This is NOT a remake of Waters' Hairspray, it's a screen adaptation of the Broadway musical. For example, trying to connect the flasher in this film to a scene in another Waters' movie is ridiculous - the flasher was in the Broadway production. 209.247.22.170 13:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• • How do you know the writers of the book and music for the broadway Hairspray didn't watch, or were fans of, Waters' previous work. You are clearly misinformed AND an agenda poster if you think that because the broadway edition had it, it wasn't influenced by previous Waters films. Consider this: If it WASN'T an influence to Waters' previous films, then why would they choose Waters to cameo that part, over all other possible cameos? The references section stays, unless you or someone else have a better argument.FoamParty 07:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This section needs to be removed for the simple reason there is no proof the creative team intentionally referenced other works by Waters. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it must stick to the facts and not include assumptions, speculations, possibilities, and the like. Adding the comment that it's unclear whether or not the references are overt does not make mention of them OK according to Wikipedia policy. ConoscoTutto 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded this section and added a citation. The director does not explicitly say the references here are toward John Waters movies, but he does provide two clues: That "all roads of Hairspray lead back to John Waters," and that the movie contains a lot of "winks" to other movies. Fans of Waters' work will pick up on the references mentioned in the article immediately; we need not wait until the Hairspray DVD comes out with commentary for director Shankman to explicitly tell us that each scene mentioned here references a previous Waters film when he already tells us there are many "shout outs" and that Waters was highly influential.

What you're doing is called "Sspeculation". Speculation doesn't make for good encyclopedia articles, and is actually against Wikipedia editing standards. --FuriousFreddy 00:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the original film, the stage musical and the 2007 film addition

In this film, when they are in with Motormouth Maybelle and Company (where they sing Big, Blonde and Beautiful) Edna goes to take Tracy home, but in the original film, Mrs. Pingleton goes to take Penny home, instead. I don't know what hapenned in the stage musical, or exactly how to say it, so I am noting it here. Tsears 3:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

References to three different incarnations of Hairspray

Because we're dealing with the extraordinary occurrence of a movie that's been turned into a Broadway show that's been turned back into a movie, this article needs to be clear about how we reference each production. Here's what I propose:

• Avoid calling any production simply "the musical." All three productions were arguably musicals, although the medium differs
• To avoid confusion regarding the two film versions, the term "the original movie" or other references to the "original" should be avoided. I suggest this because some readers may be confused over what it is that's original. Some may not know of the 1988 film, and think the original refers to the Broadway show.
• Whenever possible, references to either film should include the year it was released -- either 1988 or 2007. This should avoid any confusion over which film is under discussion.
• The Broadway production of Hairspray should contain a reference to either Broadway or the stage.
• I'm not suggesting any particular wording, as the references could be redundant. Just that the year be mentioned when referring to a particular film, and the stage or Broadway be used to reference the incarnation on stage.FoamParty 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia tag removal

I removed the trivia tag because it's not clear what section the editor believes is trivia. If it's the movie connections, I agree, and I think it's irrelevant and should be removed. But just because things appear in bullet points doesn't mean it's a trivia section. Please be more specific about what you think is a trivia section so we can DISCUSS how to remedy the problem.

Fair use rationale for Image:WMA.jpg

Image:WMA.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Grease inspiration?

one can't help but notice the similarities between the titles "Grease" and "Hairspray".. is there actually a link, besides the cast? i.e. was John Waters inspired by Grease? 131.111.24.187 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard John Waters say Grease influenced the making of Hairspray, and if you compare the plots of the two films, there aren't many similarities. You may be drawing comparisons because of the era the film is set in, but keep in mind that Grease was supposed to be the 1950s, while the 1988 Hairspray was set in 1962. Also, you should try to see the John Waters film Cry-Baby. That film, starring Johnny Depp, was made before Hairspray and is much more of a parody of "Grease." FoamParty 00:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Character articles

We should have articles about the characters from Hairspray. For the ones on each character, the template of the "Hairspray character" would include Hair Color, Eye Color, Relatives, and Actor. The first sentence for the Tracy Turnblad article would be: "Tracy Turnblad is a fictional character in the 1988 and 2007 films and 2002 Broadway musical, Hairspray." Also there would be plots of the characters in all adaptations. As you know, Hairspray became a series. --PJ Pete

• I don't know that the characters have become notable enough. Things about the characters changed in the productions, and the show is much more of an ensemble cast than one that focuses on characters. And what do you mean Hairspray became a series? As in a TV series? FoamParty 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Filming in Toronto vs. Baltimore

Under production, the article states that Baltimore wasn't chosen as a primary filming location because of the lack of soundstages in Maryland. I found a citation for that and added it in. However, the article also states that Baltimore doesn't have active streetcars and Toronto does. I'm incline to remove this because director Adam Shankman states in the citation I added that the lack of soundstages was the ONLY reason he chose to shoot in Toronto. If someone can find a citation for the streetcars piece, we can leave it. FoamParty 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

This is NOT the closing credits of a movie, we do not class people in their groups in the movie etc, apart from the dancers who don't actually have "parts". Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

References to Pulp Fiction

There are a couple references to the 1994 film Pulp Fiction that I think are worth a discussion. The first is the "two fingered eye point" mentioned as a reference to John Travolta's scene with Uma Thurman. I can sort of see this as possible. The second is the section on the bloodstains on car upholstery. The article mentions two possible references: One from Pulp Fiction and one from John Waters book. (full disclosure: I wrote the section referencing Waters' book.) I'm a big fan of Pulp Fiction, though, and here's my beef: In Pulp Fiction, I don't think the car where they shot Marvin even had cloth upholstery. And when Vincent and Sam Jackson's character clean out the car, they don't bother cleaning the car upholstery. They cover it with blankets. My point is, the reference seems a lot more likely to be that of the John Waters' book reference. I don't know who was responsible for dropping that line in (the one where Travolta tells Blonsky's character that they she should learn how to take bloodstains out of car upholstery), but I'm starting to think it might be the guy who wrote the screenplay. There's just too many small John Waters references in this film that never appeared in the musical. Any thoughts? I'm inclined to delete the Pulp Fiction reference for its improbability, but I wanted to get people's opinion on it. Thanks. FoamParty 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and one more possible John Waters reference to bloodstains in car upholstery that I just thought of: In Female Trouble, Mink Stole's character plays "car accident" and squirts ketchup all over a car seat to simulate blood... It's long been known as inspired by John Waters' fascination with car wrecks (a la Shock Value), but I thought I'd mention it anyway. FoamParty 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Other Information" section masquerades as Trivia

So I placed a trivia tag on it. There's some good information there, but can we integrate it into other sections? Tracy Turblad loves integration. So do I. Let's get these facts placed throughout the article. FoamParty 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical Numbers' Legend

In the legend for the musical numbers, it says that "** indicates that the lyrics of the song have been altered or changed" and that "*** indicates that Velma and Amber's verses were cut for the film." To me it seems that the "**" would cover the fact that Velma and Amber's verses were cut from the song, especially since "***" only applys to one song, 'You Can't Stop The Beat'. Should this be changed? —Mears man 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research

In my opinion, the entire section after "Shankman has not said whether there are overt references in 2007's Hairspray to Waters' older films, but viewers of his other films may recognize themes from previous Waters' movies:" is original research. Yes, most of the details of the previous Waters films are documented with sources, but the sources don't say that the 2007 film references them specifically. They may just be coincidence. Crystallina 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this fits the definition of original research. The section clearly states that themes from earlier Waters films are reprised in Hairspray. Viewing the entire body of Waters' work would make this fact obvious, and it's clearly necessary to cite themes reprised in earlier works in an encyclopedic article to further the understanding of how parts of this film came to exist. The only one that may be a stretch is the detention connection. If you've seen Waters' other films, saying the smoking in the bathroom scene and the flasher scene aren't references to Pink Flamingos and Female Trouble is like accusing people who say a creature bursting out of human belly in other films is using original research. FoamParty 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If you can't find explicit print sources for it, it's original research. What was done before was, fro ma research standpoint, more than a little shaky. It is best to find articles where someone associated with the film even says that there are visual references to Waters films (the only references I've read about are to other movie musicals). --FuriousFreddy 00:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Other information" and "Differences between the films"

Both of these sections pretty much contain the same type of info and should be combined. Ophois 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...so I rewrote the whole thing.

I swore off Wikipedia, but it took quite a troubled article on such a good movie to bring me back. Among the major things I had to fix:

1. Wikipedia: WikiProject Films stipulates that plot summaries should be written as plot summaries (not the song-by-song rundown mandated by the Musical Theatre project). This problem was already thrashed out over at the article on The Rocky Horror Picture Show. For movies, WikiProject Film wins, for Broadway musicals, WikiProject Musical Theatre wins. Makes sense to me. Also, plot summaries are not to exceed 900 words, and while I failed on that account, I got as close to 900 (about 1100 or so) as humanly possible).
2. I rewrote most of the lists, bullets, asterisked lists, etc., etc., etc. into prose (this is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia article).
3. A lot of the trivia and fancruft had to go (the long, long lists comparing this version of hairspray with that version of Hairspray, and my personal favorite, the list comparing the junior novelization to the film. Yeesh.). The major changes between versions are rewritten into prose and sourced from an article I have by Leslie Dixon in Script magazine, in which she discusses at length what she threw in, what she threw out, and why. The various changes to the song score are handled accordingly. The article was already pretty long as it was. If some really wants a detailed list of what changed between where, they should do it as a separate article with a table a la Differences between film and musical versions of The Producers.
4. I tried to reshape the article into WikiProject Film suggested sections, to give it a better flow.
5. Refs, refs, refs!

The sections that were hit the softest were the ones on production, the Travota controversy, and the critical/box office reception. Kudos to those editors. Let's try to keep this article looking clean and professional, if for no other reason that thousands, if not million, will be pulling it up expecting a decent write-up. --FuriousFreddy 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. to whoever wrote that "Hairspray recouped its cost when it passed the 75-mil mark" or something similar: film studios only receive about half of their domestic revenue, and less so from international receipts (the rest goes to the movie theatre owners, DeLuxe Labs for the prints, and possibly Travolta's pocket.) The film won't recoup its cost until (or unless) it hits about $150 mil domestically. Even still, we still don't exactly if or when the film will become profitable, so such speculation should be left out of the article). --FuriousFreddy 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When you redid the cast section, you removed half the list... Ophois 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed a list of dancers (certainly not "stars"), most of whom have next-to-no dialogue in the film. That is, it's borderline minutae. The list could at least be formated so that it doesn't take up so much of the page (and possibly augmented to include the black dancers as well as the white ones). --FuriousFreddy 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Travolta Controversy"

I deleted the second paragraph, as it was essentially one long weasel word. None of the sources linked to specific criticism from the gay/ts community regarding Travoltra's role, only relatively negative reviews regardng his performance. It has nothing to do with the perceived anti-gay/transsexual motives that some would claim existed in this movie. Other than the boycott itself, which happened whether you agree with it or not, none of the other information in that section belonged on wikipedia.--WingedOutlaw 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Initial GA comments

Pending a full review, here are some initial observations:

• Unlike the IMDb, we don't tend to include a comprehensive release dates section. Wikipedia is not a video guide.
• The formatting of the references is inconsistent. Some are merely URls. Try to use as many of the cite template fields as possible. Also, the ref should go after the punctuation with no space (I see a few errors there).

The JPS^{talk to me} 11:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to expand on my comment about the release date section. Such a section is not accommodated within the style guidelines. To the best of my knowledge, no good or featured article contains such a section. It's convention, really, only to list the release date in a film's home country. You might want to start the 'reception' section with that in prose, very similar to the existing sentence in the lead? Also, I think the style guidelines prefer the 'Reception' section to be merged, rather than split into categories. HTH, The JPS^{talk to me} 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot section is probably about 30% too long. Generally plot summaries shouldn't be more than 900 words. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the current version is 300 words shorter than the original version, which was scene-specific to a fault. I could cut this one further by removing any mention of the whole subplot involving Michelle Pfieffer trying to seduce Christopher Walken (it's not entirely essential to the main story thread and I could easily write around it. However, said subplot takes up about fifteen minutes of screen time and two whole songs, so someone else will undoubtedly add it back in. should I try it anyway? --FuriousFreddy 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and dropped the summary down to 898 words, by doing what I described above and trimming whatever other fat I could. --FuriousFreddy 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot section was getting a bit long again, so I went ahead and trimmed the fat as best as I could. It's currently down to 899 words. —Mears man 15:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Antisocial vs. Asocial

Just a quick note, but Edna Turnbald is not "antisocial". She's "asocial". There's a difference, and I figured as an encyclopedic source, Wikipedia should make note of the differences. I changed it, but decided to mention something here as well in case people tried to change it back.

Antisocial behavior is manipulative. Antisocial people are difficult to be treated because they are manipulative within the treatment - it's hard to tell if they are ever really changed or if they're just saying they're changed.

Asocial behavior is what the general population would call "antisocial". Asocial people are avoidant of most social situations and are generally withdrawn. It can usually accompany Agoraphobia, which I think is Edna's situation.

SkittlzAnKomboz 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

• The first and second paragraphs of the lead should be one.

•  Done —Mears man 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The fourth lead paragraph should be deleted as it is biased to one country.

•  Done —Mears man 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Plot synopsis -> Plot.

•  Done —Mears man 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Production history -> Production.

•  Done —Mears man 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete promotion as it is uncited.

•  Done —Mears man 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete release dates per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.

•  Done —Mears man 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere, it's ok. Alientraveller 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Alientraveller 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD and Blu-ray disc release sections

Could an experienced editor who's familiar with the standard guidelines for film articles please look over the newly added DVD release and Blu-ray disc release sections? I feel that these sections probably need some work to fit in with Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm afraid that I'm growing too close to this article, and, as a result, I'm not thinking about things are clearly as I probably should, so I'm asking for someone else's help with this one. Also, should the two sections be merged into one section, possibly something along the lines of "DVD and Blu-ray relese" seeing as they seem to be more or less about the same thing? Thanks everyone! —Mears man 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd merge the sections. Rather than have that complete list, I'd just include (in prose) the most notable extras. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a shot, but it still probably needs a bit of work. I also moved the DVD/Blu-ray release section below the "Release and reception" section because I feel like the two are at least somewhat related, but if it should be elsewhere go ahead and move it back. —Mears man 21:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the DVD/Blu-ray section is still in desperate need of work. I've tried to work with it, but someone seems to keep going back and gradually undoing my edits. A lot of other musical film articles that I've looked at don't even have a section for the DVD release, and the one's the do certainly aren't as lengthy as this. I mean, really, is it necessary to mention that the DVD will have interactive menus? A lot of the information needs to be weeded through, and the section should probably be written in prose (at least for the most part). —Mears man 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section title to Home Video Release, as there are simply too many editions spanning several formats to be specific in the title. Someone reverted the change to Blu-ray Disc & DVD Release, but what about HD DVD? Home Video Release is the perfect wording and it used on most articles. Swisspass 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I took down all of the special features listed as two-disc edition special features that are on the single-disc edition, and simply stated that the two-disc edition contains all of the single-disc edition's special features, plus all of the two-disc edition's special features that are not available on the single-disc edition. I also removed the pointlessly listed special feature of "interactive menus". - Tigerfan368 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hairspray (1-Disc).jpg

Image:Hairspray (1-Disc).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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hairspray (2-Disc) (Kids).jpg

Image:Hairspray (2-Disc) (Kids).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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1