Talk:A Single Man

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

California: Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

United States: Cinema

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Film posters[edit]

Is the "Film Posters" section worth having? Jules (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed it, since it seems like trivia. If there's some sort of outcry about the other characters not appearing that hits reliable sources, that would make it more notable. Doniago (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

Seriously, no need to spoil the film for everyone. Removed the major spoilers in the hope that no one else will have their experience dampened the way mine was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjpratt1 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia no longer marks spoilers as it used to and the official policy is to provide a complete plot synopsis. Therefore I'm reverting your changes. Sorry if you had a bad movie-going experience, but I would suggest using other sites like IMDb with clear spoiler warnings before watching a movie and reading the WP article only after you've seen the movie. Morn (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the plot summary to be unsatisfactory in the a number of key areas. I did not feel that George's relationship with Charley was adequately explained, for example. As a whole, the summary is all over the place in terms of chronology and emphasis. I am drafting my own summary, but welcome any input or changes. Lancehouleii (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2010

My only recommendation would be to avoid going into too much detail or making the summary overly-long. WP:FILMPLOT discusses this at length, including word-count guidelines. Good luck with the revised summary! Doniago (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and the link to the Film guideline page. My one concern in regards to your edit is that George and Charley's relationship is considerably diminished again. This was my initial reason for editing the piece. Was there anything I said about their relationship that you would not consider interpretation and may be reinserted? Also, in terms of my more technical language in which I discuss the repeated change in saturation, would it be beneficial to place this in a style or themes section? I see it as a notable storytelling device for this film. Lancehouleii (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2010

Welcome! I'm not really sure what more can be said about G&C. We know they're best friends, we know C tries to seduce G, but (and I admit I haven't seen the film in awhile now) in the interests of keeping the plot concise, I'm not really sure what more needs to be said.

As far as the changes in saturation and stuff, your use of the word "notable" begs the question of whether there's reliable sources that discuss it. If not, you're really delving into original research that is, unfortunately, inappropriate for inclusion. And conversely, if there aren't reliable sources that discuss it, then the material probably isn't notable enough to merit inclusion.

Sorry if I'm coming across harshly. I'm definitely a fan of concise, focused Plot sections that limit their discussion to what is actually seen on screen...and then, only the material that's really needed to understand the film. The technical discussion may very well be worthy of inclusion as well, but we need to know that "experts" feel the same way. You might want to start with checking to see whether any critics' reviews discuss it. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not coming across harshly at all. I'm new to this, and your input has really helped my understanding of this whole process. I see what you mean about G&C now. As far as the reliable sources goes for the saturation, Ford actually talks about it in the DVD commentary and special features. I'll look further into it. Lancehouleii (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010

You're too kind. (smile) If Ford's talked about the saturation on the commentary/special features (I do remember that now), that would be suitable as a reference. Glad to be of assistance! Doniago (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the plot summary seems to me mere interpretation. Haven#t seen the revolver in the boys hand, just the marvellos ironic trial to kill himself.- ending in being a sofa! Please differencecate between symbol/ tool and organ to describe subjective visable film action...--Raskollnika (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Single Man (film) → A Single Man – Primary topic based on number of views in comparison to novel. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (film). [2] (book). That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 09:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A Single Man/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Y All the start class criteria
Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year
Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unsourced. In order to meet the more rigorous new criteria for B class, it needs to cite its sources. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Single Man. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A Single Man. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]