Talk:Pedro Almodóvar

Year of birth

1949 sounds unlikely, given that his official web page says "Born in the 50's in Calzada de Calatrava". Algae 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder where the 1949 date comes from. This site gives the year as 1951, but I'm not sure about the date. Theshibboleth 20:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to chage it to September 25, 1951 as per this site. Theshibboleth 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubted about the true date, but I have found good references:

• Official site: it states Born in the 50s.
• El País (First Spanish newspaper): 25-09-1951 (Spanish way of writing the date)
• Borja Hermoso in El Mundo (Critic in second Spanish newspaper). september 26, 2005.- Yesterday, september 25, was Pedro Almodóvar's birthday. 54.

I'll revert last edit, which set the year back to 1949

--jynus 00:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDb has 24 September 1949 [1], some other pages likewise ([2]). Given that Almodóvar seems to make a mystery about his age, stating only some diffuse "born in the 50s", 1949 seems most likely to me. But the best sources have 1951, so one should leave it this way for the moment. Also, some pages give 24 September as his birthday, yet most the 25 September. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy cat

I wish this article had a session on the several allegations of plagiarism and corresponding legal trouble — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.20.142.53 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Descriptions of specific films

I've only just now come to this article on Almodóvar, and am finding the descriptions of his films not only very written but also extremely helpful in understanding his themes and their evolution from one film to another. What confuses me is the general lack of citations to sources for most of these entries, which seems to skirt awfully close to original research. As an example, Dark Habits has no references at all. Most of the discussion here is straightforward and obvious to any viewer, but some assertions - not that I disagree with them - would seem to need some authority referenced:

• Dark Habits (Entre Tinieblas) heralded a change in tone to somber melodrama with comic elements.
• The film is a satire of Spain's religious institutions, portraying spiritual desolation and moral bankruptcy. Dark Habits explores the force of desire in characters who are ruled by their intuition rather than reason.
• ... and cemented Almodóvar’s reputation as the enfant terrible of the Spanish cinema.

Pretty much all of these discussions of the various films are similar in their frequent uncited assertions. In general, I get the impression that these were written by a sophisticated and knowledgeable film critic - which is great. But do they not exceed the boundaries of Wikipedia's guidelines concerning opinions and original research? Even if editors interested in Almodóvar are in agreement among themselves about such assertions, can that in itself justify the lack of sourced citations? Where is the line drawn for discussions such as these? Milkunderwood (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a synopsis of each film is unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and not very helpful. Articles about other famous directors do not do this, what is the point of it here? It should be revised. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

recent edits have not improved the article

The recent plethora of edits adding 10 K have not improved the article, I am afraid. It is still swollen with unreferenced claims, supersloppy sources in bare urls, some sources were even deleted. and the lede is a mess, cant see the person at all.- so I flagged it.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

so it looks like Bullamore took the dead link sign down, but there are dead links. what is this good for? --Wuerzele (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

filmcareer section is off topic

A major problem of this page that it is basically just film review. but its a BLP.

In that sense the WP:UNDUE overwhelming filmcareer section, which is full of unsourced claim, editorialing terms of hyperbole and original research until proven otherwise, even WP:crystalball stuff, is really off topic. It contains very little WP:RS info about the man otherwise.

On top of that the section doesnt add anything as EVERY movie has its own page!

take it and the table out ( my preference) and tehers hardly anything left. what a bummer.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly each of these film synopses needs work, but to label the section as a whole "off topic" seems absurd to me. What could be more on topic than a brief synopsis of the films of a major director? I removed the tag and and am amazed that it lasted for 2 1/2 years. --Dupea (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pedro Almodóvar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160425031843/http://www.fotogramas.es/Cinefilia/Los-9-temas-mas-reconocibles-del-cine-de-Almodovar to http://www.fotogramas.es/Cinefilia/Los-9-temas-mas-reconocibles-del-cine-de-Almodovar
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160426224054/http://actualidad.academiadecine.com/reportajes/detalle.php?id_noticia=912 to http://actualidad.academiadecine.com/reportajes/detalle.php?id_noticia=912

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pedro Almodóvar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706095646/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/61st-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1989

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

What have I done to deserve this?

I just wonder why there is no entry under 'Film career' (there is a bare listing under 'Filmography') for 'What have I done to deserve this?', especially given that it was seen in Spain at least as a creative leap forward for PA, as well as Carmen Maura's first classic Almodovar role (I have no citations to back this up, just recollection). Not wishing to gripe, especially as I'm not in a position to add the relevant section - it just seems an odd omission.

Pepiluci (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pedro Almodóvar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822131434/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5312/year/1999.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5312/year/1999.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010231947/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/4185283/year/2004.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/4185283/year/2004.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090704231814/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/10889598/year/2009.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/10889598/year/2009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014192943/http://www.pedroalmodovar.es/ to http://www.pedroalmodovar.es/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pedro Almodóvar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141229214032/http://t.elplural.com/2014/01/08/almodovar-no-da-credito-su-principal-companero-de-la-movida-se-ha-convertido-en-portavoz-delirante-de-gallardon/ to http://t.elplural.com/2014/01/08/almodovar-no-da-credito-su-principal-companero-de-la-movida-se-ha-convertido-en-portavoz-delirante-de-gallardon/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117913077.html?categoryid=1852&cs=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014192943/http://www.pedroalmodovar.es/ to http://www.pedroalmodovar.es/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.

The article is listed in the following catagories:

• Articles with unsourced statements from May 2016
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from May 2016
• Articles that may contain original research from May 2016.

Reassess article to C-class pending issue resolution. Otr500 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Profile image

User:Asqueladd has problems with the image and keeps trying to revert it. Here to open discussions. Please don't change current photo until consensus has been made.The One I Left (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The current photo is not the photo in the statu quo ante, which is the one I reverted back to. User:The One I Left is hardly abiding to WP:BRD procedures.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Make your case here. It's perfectly fine.The One I Left (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Stay civil, abide to WP:BRD first and I will then make my case here.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you want to make your case or not.The One I Left (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)