Talk:She Shoulda Said No!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	She Shoulda Said No! is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 30, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 1, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs of poster or other sales material for the "Treasury endorsed" campaign be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Find sources: She Shoulda Said No! — news, books, scholar

Contents 1 Additional image 2 Additional reference 3 Good Article PASS 4 Quotation marks 5 Requested move 5.1 Questions of accuracy 5.2 More on quotes 6 Posters

[edit] Additional image

If the article expands, there may be a point where the image to the right (removed for now - bdj) may add to the article. I stored it here until that time. -- Jreferee 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This DVD cover collage captures the range emotions for which the movie was intended but failed to achieve.-- Jreferee 23:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you so certain? Given it's success, I wouldn't be so sure. To a person living in this day & age, it probably does fail but it may have very well done so to a majority of 1949 audience Nil Einne 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional reference

I found this reference, which discuss' the American Movie Classics film Ballyhoo: The Hollywood Sideshow, which has a piece on "She Shoulda Said 'No'!". Please feel free to work it into the article if it has some relevance. -- Jreferee 02:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Persall, Steve. (Aug. 13, 1996). St. Petersburg Times Cinema Shenanigans. Section: Floridian; Page 1D.

Another ref:

• Hollywood vs. Hardcore talks about the film on pages 203-204. Check it out here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0814751423/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-2467573-0367162# Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it talks about Babb a bit, but nothing that isn't already covered better elsewhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article PASS

• Not sure what this sentence is intended to mean:"...in a series of scenes designed to procure a reaction from the audience in terms of relations with the opposite sex as well as other tragic happenings." Please clarify.
• Otherwise everything looks good. Good work!

--Ling.Nut 03:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That does look a little rough, doesn't it? I'll adjust it tomorrow when I'm more awake. Thanks for the review! --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks

Are the quotation marks actually part of the title? That is, the ones enclosing the full title, not the ones around the word No.) —tregoweth (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they are. It's a very annoying title, haha, but I have triple checked this against numerous primary sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We're not compelled to follow unusual orthography, per the general naming conventions and WP:MOSTM. I'm going to make the move, but feel free to revert and discuss; it would also be good if you could share your sources for independent scrutiny. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I assume Badly Drawn Jeff is going off of the actual title of the film. The sources in the article itself appear to also go along with the actual title. It also appears that this article was ranked as one of the best on the project at the old title - should we really have it here if the apparently heavy use of redirects gets anyone to where they need to be? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It also appears that you created about a dozen broken redirects in the process of this move. I'm going to move it back to the old title until we resolve this in the meantime. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to its proper name until some more discussion occurs. Per the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Special_characters page, "should" be avoided doesn't mean "must" in the sake of accuracy, and according to "controversial names," the policy says "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed." Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then. Let's bring this to WP:RM and divine the consensus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Questions of accuracy

I suggest that those who are arguing on grounds of accuracy above have a good read of Wikipedia:naming conventions for what is relevant here, and linguistic prescription for what is not. You might also have a look at Wikipedia:official names which is still just at the discussion stage but might help.

To summarise, Wikipedia article names follow current common English usage, whether accurate or not in terms of any particular authority. That's a policy, not just a guideline, and it catches many people by surprise. In the article content, yes, we're very concerned with accuracy. But as to what to call the article, we go by usage, with very few exceptions, and those are nearly all in order to resolve some ambiguity in usage. Andrewa (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And that, frankly, is stupid. If the policies are forcing us to use inaccurate titling, then there's a grave problem with the policy, but that shouldn't come as a shock to any WP veteran. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I respect your position, and suggest you try in turn to understand the position that others have taken in agreeing to this policy. I'm happy to discuss it, perhaps on our user talk pages? Then, if you still think the policy could be improved, raise it in a suitable forum. But meantime, I'm afraid many decisions are going to be made in compliance to the existing policy. That's what the policy is for. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify my position: I agree with Jeff as to accuracy vs. "rules". If the quotes are, indeed, part of the official title, I say to hell with the "rules" and put those quotes in our title too. To intentionally disregard accuracy in obedience to "the rules" would be absurd. However, I just don't see the evidence that the quotes were meant to be a part of the title, as opposed to just a convention in advertising materials at the time. I did find some web pages that included the quotes, without quoting other films, but the print sources-- at least the ones I found-- all had no quotes. Dekkappai (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And of course, one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies is ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Dekkappai's comment above seems a very reasonable one. Beyond that, I'll say that while I usually have a much greater respect for accuracy and a much lesser respect for people's expectations than do some of WP's naming policies, I have some reservations about what could be termed accuracy in naming. Consider the article on the pop group Ellegarden: until I got to it, it was ELLEGARDEN and most of the songs, etc, had WACky JAPAneSE CAPITaliZATION. (I see that the latter has made a slight reappearance.) Now look at the list of concerts by another Japanese popster. This is the kind of silliness (uh, "accuracy") that a lot of people want, and merely because it's the whim of some marketer or graphic designer somewhere, a whim that's assiduously followed by obsessed fans and so forth, often all in the name of accuracy. Clearly a lot of titles that aren't in quotes (e.g. Give 'em Hell, Harry!) are in fact quotes or speech acts or similar; I'd be inclined to leave quotation marks off any of them. An exception would be quotation marks for very deliberate ironic or other effect, e.g. some (hypothetical) movie whose posters advertised it as "The President" and which was clearly about a decoy or similar. ¶ Question for those who want the quotation marks stripped off the title of this article: do the quotation marks cause any confusion? Why the urgency in the title change? -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotations cause basic problems in the wiki software, including search errors and other problems caused by "special characters". There's no urgency anymore than there is for most anything else on the wiki, but there's no reason not to do it now either. This is the second time I've attempted to change the article title and been reverted unilaterally despite having thorough guidelines to back my actions; I figured it would just be better to get a consensus and all walk away with a somewhat more definitive conclusion.

I would also like to say that if users have a problem with the guidelines, then this is not the place to make your stand on the matter. No one agrees 100% with the MOS, but I'm happy to comply with it - and when I have significant objections, I take them there instead of blaming editors for actually being diligent about following what the encyclopedia MOS outlines. The guidelines, however, do say several times that accuracy is desirable but not paramount, so perhaps it would be worth spending some time investigating why this is the case instead of excoriating other editors who didn't write the guideline, Jeff. Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dekkappai's comment is indeed reasonable, but it's also reasonable to follow the naming conventions prima facie. This particular policy is one of the most discussed, and one of the most often ignored... many days on WP:RM, more than a third of the nominations are on the grounds that the official name has changed. Some of these succeed for other reasons, but it's very, very rare for one to succeed on the grounds that the official name should be preferred to the common name. And this represents quite an investment of everyone's time in discussing and re-discussing this particular policy, and without really achieving much, as in the longer term the policy is remarkably well adhered to.

I'd be very happy to have it change, but I see no hope of it. I'm told there was recently an attempt to change it on French Wikipedia, where you'd think there was a better chance owing to the existence of a single authority on French symantics and grammar, which English of course lacks, and it particularly concerned scientific names, which again you'd think would be not very controversial. But my informant thinks it's going to fail even there.

By all means, join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:official names, which I set up just for that purpose, or even at my more general discussion page at User talk:Andrewa/systematic names. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment in response to the above "Take it to the guidelines" suggestion... Guidelines (last I checked, and I admit I don't check them often, preferring researching and writing to rule-making-- and whenever I find myself involved with the latter more than the former, I find myself wanting to leave Wikipedia for good...) said they were to be taken with common sense and the occasional exception. Now the implementation of the common sense and the occasional exception, it seems to me, is most appropriate on the talk page of the article in question. Otherwise the general guidelines would be swamped with each and every exceptional case. Now, again, about this particular case: I found it mentioned in another good print source, and, no quotes again... HoARy's COMMent AbOUT waCKy JaPANEse caPITalizATion (OK, I'll stop) does give me pause to consider. However I think it's basically a different case, because it's not an "occasional exception" but a wide-spread practise in Japanese usage English in titling. So the Japanese titling does require a guideline statement to give us a uniform way to handle these titles. But the authors of this film (if indeed they had specifically intended quotes to be a part of the title) would have been doing something intentionally exceptional. And an exception in the rules would be proper... However, again, I see no quotes... Dekkappai (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on quotes

I decided to check some contemporary sources on this... Variety has a review of the film, published August 31, 1949. It gives the Wild Weed title, and does not mention the "She Shoulda Said No" alternate title, which, according to our article, came later. (It might be worth mentioning that the Variety review puts quotes around "Wild Weed" within the review, as it does with all films.) The New York Times, on January 31, 1957, mentions She Shoulda Said So [sic] as part of a double-bill with Mom and Dad. Quotes are around the title, as they are with all other films reviewed by The New York Times... No double-quotes or anything to note that the title is unusually-quoted. So, again, after a lot of looking around, I just don't see any evidence that the quotes in the poster and promotional materials are anything but the conventional quoting-practise of the time. Dekkappai (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posters

As mentioned above, I did have an image of the film released as The Devil's Weed, and I've uploaded that. Also I found a copy of the film under its She Shoulda Said 'No'! title, with the caption after it-- "But she didn't'"-- which apparently caused confusion with the Cocaine Fiends book. As I said above, I hesitate to make big formatting changes to an FA article. If the posters are too much, feel free to remove them. God knows I'm used to having images deleted... and getting bot-notifications sprayed all over my talk page... :-( Dekkappai (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) me too... I'm thinking of starting an image gallery at Unimpedia for all the images that Wikipedia rejects. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these images are all public domain, so they don't need anything special. None of this stuff had the copyrights renewed. Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, is that under the old US law that required registration of copyright? Andrewa (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm using the definitions here, where it was published between 1923-1963 and the copyright does not appear to be renewed. I have checked the relevant books for most of Babb's films and the only one with a renewal is Mom and Dad. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)