Talk:The Maggie

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Maggie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British

	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 needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More info[edit]

I had to remove this spam, even though several viewers' comments are very informative, particularly about locations and Tommy Kearins, the wee boy. Clarityfiend 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenchant, how trenchant?[edit]

"Colin McArthur has made a trenchant criticism... of the failure of contemporary commentators to interrogate the narrative...".

Has he, by god? "trenchant", is it? "Colin", should we? "McArthur", would you? "Narrative", you say?

Is this really necessary? To have the unspecified opinions of a critic, which appear to be about the unspecified opinions of other critics, inserted in to the intro of a wikipedia page about a gentle and harmless mid-50s Ealing comedy?

I suppose, if it's trenchant, who am I to argue? Let it stand Robin J Thomson (talk) Robin J Thomson (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place, moved to reception, and mibbe the receptionist can tell us ^[who?] this critic is. . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's a published author, as noted in Further reading; I added a later book as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Reminds me of Chic Murray, asked by a posh receptionist "who are you?", replying "ahm fine, hoos yersel?". . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chemist, a no nonsense woman she was, asked;

"Would you like the pills wrapped?"

And then I asked;

"Are they round?"

"Yes" she said, quite nonchalant, y'know.

So I replied;

"Well I'll just roll them home myself, save you some time." Robin J Thomson (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, good work. Robin J Thomson (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]