Talk:Mary Reilly (film)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / American

	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 British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Proposed move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. -- Kjkolb 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Reilly → Mary Reilly (film) – This so that an article can be made about Mary Reilly, the chair of the LDA. -Wser 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support - I think that the page should be moved so that the chair of the LDA (Mary Reilly) can have an article. -Wser 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The head of an agency of one city is not globally notable. Use a hatnote to point to Mary Reilly (politician), for example. I'm not sure what her profession is, maybe (economist)? I'd avoid making the disambiguator her present office. --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, use a dablink to point to Mary Reilly (Londoner) as per Dhartung. 132.205.44.134 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

She can have an article without moving this page - just add a sentence to the top of this article pointing to something like Mary Reilly (London Development Agency), and then write the new article at that location. But there's no real reason to move this until that other article has been written. Also, most of the incoming links here are for the film, so the film should probably stay here. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic for more information about this kind of disambiguation. — sjorford ++ 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Mary Reilly DVD cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Mary Reilly DVD cover.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 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 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Length, Detailed Nature of Summary[edit]

Whoever posts that the plot summary is too long or too detailed clearly has no education at all. Making such a pronouncement is nothing but a show of pique by someone who is simply illiterate. There are no grounds within the basic purpose of Wikipedia to even make such a declaration. Who are we fearing to offend or ill-serve by a plot summary being either too long or too detailed? I would guess only that illiterate person who feels threatened by any use of words as they are unable to use words themselves.Godofredo29 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Godofredo29: It is policy to have a concise plot summary. WP:PLOT says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." We want to talk about the work of fiction, basically, not just detail the work itself. WP:WAF explains this further: "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." Like for example, this mentions a chapter called, "Monstrous love: oppression, intimacy and transformation in Mary Reilly". That is a secondary source that should be referenced in the Wikipedia article, since the articles should be based on such sources. We reference the primary source, the film, to have a summary of it so readers can know what the film is about. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our positions are not mutually exclusive. We only disagree on one word, which is "concise" in concise plot summary. That is a subjective rule not based on the physical reality of Wikipedia which has no concrete limitations to just how long and detailed a plot summary might be. Obviously, the plot summary of the film Mary Reilly and really all other plot summaries I have seen similarly singled out as too long or too detailed is nowhere near too long nor too detailed and I don't believe any such plot summary exists anywhere in Wikipedia. Clearly it is just a matter of somebody's (such as the illiterate individual mentioned above)sensibilities being offended, somebody with little or no experience with the expectations of literate users of Wikipedia.Godofredo29 (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]