Talk:Michael Powell (director)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Change name of page
Michael Powell was hardly ever known as Michael Latham Powell. I propose moving this page to Michael Powell (director) to fit in better with the style of all the other people called Michael Powell. SteveCrook 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early films
There are 25 titles listed with Powell as a director on the IMDb before The Edge of the World (1937):
The Man Behind the Mask (1936)
Crown v. Stevens (1936)
The Brown Wallet (1936)
Her Last Affaire (1936)
Someday (1935)
The Price of a Song (1935)
The Phantom Light (1935)
The Night of the Party (1935)
The Love Test (1935)
Lazybones (1935)
The Girl in the Crowd (1935)
Something Always Happens (1934)
Red Ensign (1934)
The Fire Raisers (1934)
Born Lucky (1933)
His Lordship (1932)
C.O.D. (1932)
Hotel Splendide (1932)
The Star Reporter (1932)
Rynox (1932)
The Rasp (1932)
My Friend the King (1932)
Two Crowded Hours (1931)
Caste (1930) (uncredited)
Riviera Revels (1928)
In Caste he is listed as an uncredited director, the "main" director being Campbell Gullan. There's not much in Powell's autobiography about this one and might be more accurate to list Powell as 'assistant director' or 'second unit director'.
But many of them are "Missing, Believed Lost" so it's hard to check on any details.
Riviera Revels shouldn't really be there as a standalone title but has proved hard to delete from the IMDb. This has turned out to be a reference to a series of comic shorts he made with Harry Lachman. Only a few details are known about some of these:
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 1: (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 2: A Nasty Jar1 (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 6: (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 9: Cold Feats (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 10: Fauny Business (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 11: Scents and Nonsense (1927)
Riviera Revels - Travelaugh No. 12: That Son of a Sheik (1927)
They were all directed by Lachman although Powell may have acted as 'assistant director' or 'second unit director' on some of them.
But they are all "Missing, Believed Lost" apart from a short clip from Fauny Business where Powell acts as an English tourist dreaming that he is a faun. -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ordering bibliographical records
The rationale for ordering bibliographical records alphabetically is that it is easy to find one from a short citation in the Notes. However, there is a problem. I find "Powell 1986" cited first in the Notes, yet when I look below in the Bibliography there are no books by Powell! I have to scroll upward to find books by him. --Jtir (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll fix that, it's a mix of Harvard and MLA formats at work. FWIW, the reason for sorting alphabetically is due to the use of multiple editions. Bzuk (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
- For the record, WP:LAYOUT#References and WP:LOW both address the sorting of bibliographic records. They are not inconsistent though, because they are describing different sections. Will await your changes. --Jtir (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's an excellent solution. --Jtir (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- i know i've sorta come late to the table, but it seems to me that wp:low is the more correct reference. regarding the actual citations in i think the use of template {{cite book}} would be helpful. --emerson7 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You have three (?) editors who are OK with the current arrangement, but I will add a comment. The names of the end-sections in this article do not conform to WP:LAYOUT. The section the guideline calls "References" is called "Bibliography" in the article. Also, User:Bzuk is an experienced librarian, so you may count on him to format bibrecs perfectly without cite templates. I am not a librarian so I use cite templates, and I recommend them to editors generally. But it doesn't bother me [anymore] when he redoes them. --Jtir (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The term "References" is actually a nebulous term not used in publishing however it does serve to identify those sources of information that are properly identified as "end/footnotes" and a "bibliography" or "bibliographic record." Before instituting this revision to the standard Wiki sourcing, I very carefully read over the MoS and there is a provision for the use of both "Notes" and "Bibliography" and when a Swedish editor began using this style, I naturally was about to revert the changes out-of-hand until I began to see the advantages in grouping sources as well as the use of smaller fonts to condense the section. As to sorting a bibliographical record, the standard is to alphabetically sort by first entry whether it is author or title. FWIW, I have now made numerous edits over the last months and the style has been accepted by all editors once they check into its viability as a revised style. Besides being a former reference librarian, I am now an editor (by trade) and a published author so I have dealt with editing issues over a lengthy period of time dating back a decade or two. Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC).
-
- You have three (?) editors who are OK with the current arrangement, but I will add a comment. The names of the end-sections in this article do not conform to WP:LAYOUT. The section the guideline calls "References" is called "Bibliography" in the article. Also, User:Bzuk is an experienced librarian, so you may count on him to format bibrecs perfectly without cite templates. I am not a librarian so I use cite templates, and I recommend them to editors generally. But it doesn't bother me [anymore] when he redoes them. --Jtir (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- i know i've sorta come late to the table, but it seems to me that wp:low is the more correct reference. regarding the actual citations in i think the use of template {{cite book}} would be helpful. --emerson7 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's an excellent solution. --Jtir (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, WP:LAYOUT#References and WP:LOW both address the sorting of bibliographic records. They are not inconsistent though, because they are describing different sections. Will await your changes. --Jtir (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] References
I'm wary of including the books by Howard or Salwolke in these articles about Powell, Pressburger or their films. The one by Howard is mainly about Powell, it only mentions Pressburger in passing. And it's got hardly any original research. It's mainly just a collection of references. As for the Salwolke book, it's just full of errors -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)