Talk:The Devil Wears Prada (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Radner, Hilary (2010). "The Devil Wears Prada (2006): The Fashion Film". Neo-Feminist Cinema: Girly Films, Chick Flicks, and Consumer Culture. Routledge. ISBN 0415877733.

A few things...

• I've been wondering if the article should indicate the several clothing lines featured in the film.

It does now that the DVD's out and we can hear Patricia Field talk about it on the commentary track. Daniel Case 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• The claim that Anna Wintour was going to "banish" fashion designers for appearing in the film needs references.

It's at the end of that paragraph. Daniel Case 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, but one or two more should be included. Crimson-Radar 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a second ref for both allegations. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Thanks! Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The "differences" section is unbelievably long.

The result of all sorts of well-meaning anons after the film came out. Some really aren't, IMO, worth noting; others could be combined. I'll have to take a look at it this weekend and see what I can do, now that the film is in that distribution interstice between theatrical and DVD release. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of it is relatively trivial and the section could use some heavy trimming. Personally, the most notable differences between the film and novel should be kept. Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is the minor cast section necessary? While they're notable, perhaps they can be trimmed for now and replaced at a later date.

That was per the project guidelines when I started the page. Daniel Case 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Crimson-Radar 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Some other clean-up should be instituted as well.

Crimson-Radar 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on differences between novel and movie is a bit too long 203.109.177.43 02:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)itsawayoflife

Yes, I totally agree ... and I was the one who started it. As I've said above, I'll have to sit down and clear it out soon, given that we're coming up on the US DVD release. Daniel Case 03:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Differences section cleanup

OK, I finally did this. The biggest thing that saved space was just generally summing up the differences in the endings. It's not necessary to say that Nigel doesn't get the job he was looking for with James Holt at the end of the novel because not only does James Holt not exist in the book, the book's Nigel is very different ... both points that have already been made. (Oh, wait, I forgot to add that Holt was created for the film). I also consolidated many of the points about the same characters. I don't know if it's shorter but it's better organized, that's for sure. Daniel Case 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Need sources on these

Two of the differences concerning the twins are hereby being parked over here:

In the novel, the twins attend the Horace Mann School in The Bronx, New York, while in the movie, they attend The Dalton School in New York, New York.

I do not recall either the film or the novel explicitly identifying their school. I'll watch the DVD closely and reread the book, but I always got the impression from the latter that we're meant to think they go to the Lycée Français.

OK, the book does specify Horace Mann at one point. But whither the film? The twins are used so little. Daniel Case 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found proof of both, with cites. Daniel Case 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the book, Miranda and Andrea both stay at the Hôtel Ritz Paris. In the movie it's the Plaza Athénée.

Actually, I'm leaving this in pending the DVD. Is the hotel identified in the film? Or this is just something we would know because we've all stayed at all the fancy hotels in the tenth arrondissment, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

OK, this is confirmed in one of the deleted scenes. Article edited to reflect this. Daniel Case 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Impending DVD release

Just a heads-up to editors about the DVD release of the film slated for this Tuesday. We can expect a spike in well-meaning anon edits and, perhaps, vandalism (at least it'll be a relief from the cavalcade of complaints that we should have an article about the eponymous band). However, based on its reported extras, there should be a lot of useful information for the article in the featurettes. I hope I will be able to rent it on the day it comes out or shortly thereafter; however I'm not sure I'll be able to. If anyone does and wants to add stuff, remember to cite it (Have we come up with a format for DVD audio commentary citations yet? Has the MLA? APA? Harvard? Anyone? Bueller?). Daniel Case 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not featured?

Why is this not featured? I mean this page is about 10x the length of any other movie article on Wikipedia! -24.92.43.153 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't started the process yet, that's why. I am expecting to start at WP:FILMS's peer review next week. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The Plot section has gotten too big, need to cut down some. It shouldn't exceed 900 words. Right now, it consists of about 1350 words.--Crzycheetah 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is such a big film and I think the plot is just right now. It needs to be more in depth as before it didn't capture much of Miranda's harshness or any of the plot too in depth. It states up the top that this article may be entered to become a featured article (and it's such a wonderful article that I really enjoyed reading, which deserves to become a featured article), and the plot would need to be fairly in depth. And for a film that is 109 minutes long, I don't think the plot is too long. After all, the plot is the most important thing about any film right? Eagle Owl 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The plot is too long to read. This article is not going to get featured because of its size (91kb). Take a look at this featured article (50kb) for example, it's a 133 min. film yet the plot consists of ~770 words. Shortening the plot is not a solution either. There are too many subsections that make this article unreadable. --Crzycheetah 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I submitted this to peer review, I made a point of following guidelines and getting the plot summary down to less than a thousand words, per guidelines and other FILMPR discussions. Given that I'm too aware of this article's excessive length, I suggest that the last thing it needs is more plot (contrast this with what I did over at the the novel article, which is definitely too long and detailed and will, at some point, be trimmed down).

I would also suggest, though, that as far as overall length goes it's not really fair to compare this to one of the Star Wars articles. Those films, after all, are part of a series in which information is given in other articles, particularly ones not devoted to specific films in the series but general themes and such. This one has to stand alone ... I presumed a reader unfamiliar with the novel, as we should.

Also, aren't references not counted as part of an article's total length? That would take it down a bit. Daniel Case 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends who's reading the article, whether it is unreadable, after all it is English.

I mean I don't know the specific criteria for featured article, and don't really have much time for them, I was just saying that is what it states at the top of this talk page. I suppose the plot may be too long, and if I've got time, I'll try and decrease it slightly. Eagle Owl 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to decrease the plot but can't seem to find what else needs to go. Maybe others can have a go but i'll leave the article for now. I don't think it's too long to read, but is quite a generous length. Maybe it could still do with cutting down. Thanks for communication. Eagle Owl 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel, you are right, references do not count. I just didn't bother to exclude the references for both articles in my example. I understand that the film is more detailed than most of the others; therefore, I am thinking to make this article an exception to the guidelines. I still don't like how the Table of Contents is constructed, though. I believe some of the sections need to go. Some examples:

• The Prerelease and marketing section should be a part of the Production section.
• The Criticism section should be a part of the Critical reception subsection.
• The Reception subsection of DVD should be a part of the lead in the DVD section.
• Same goes for Blu-Ray subsection.

I was thinking of putting these suggestions in the WP:FILMPR, but it really doesn't matter, does it? --Crzycheetah 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate production history article?

So far I've found the two peer reviewers to have made helpful comments, and I have or will implement their suggestions. However, the article's overall length is still a problem that I don't see anything above solving. Merging sections only makes the TOC smaller; it won't do much to tighten up the article as a whole.

The real problem re the article's length is the production section, which runs for almost 3,500 words, roughly 27% of a (currently) 13,000-word article. During my initial work on this, I saw how much the section was growing and pondered splitting it off into a separate Production history of The Devil Wears Prada article. I didn't because it seemed that there was no other article that did this, and I decided I'd wait to see what people thought in peer review or elsewhere.

It seems there is no objection to the content of the section, save the storyboards bit being more trivial than David Frankel presents it as being. But it is undeniably the python bump in the article.

So, I am proposing splitting it off into a daughter article and leaving behind about four or five grafs and a pic or two summing up. I bet we could make up a lot of length that way and get more room to maneuver with the other sections. If it were half its length, and the "differences" section under plot prosified as I have considered on peer review, I bet we could get this under 50K.

Now I'm still aware that there are no separate production history articles for other films ... yet. But I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea. Certainly the Star Wars movies could have even more written about their production histories than currently are; I see other films in the future needing one as I'm sure this issue will come up again. Older films like Citizen Kane and Casablanca have also had enough written about their production to sustain separate articles. We would need an appropriate category, of course ... something like Category:Production histories of films would probably meet the category naming convention standards.

Any thoughts on this? I'm going to put this split proposal into the article and wait a few days. Daniel Case 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not a frequent editor of this page, but I do admire its thoroughness and would definitely put a vote in for splitting off this section, and would consider helping split off more sections like it in other film articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- I definitely agree. The information is very comprehensive. (BPhilli6)

I'm going to remove the merge template. Over a year has passed with no action, and I also feel it is unnecessary. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the inaction, but I restored as a) I intend to do it soon and b) it is a necessary action IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

"Another newspaper fashion writer, Hadley Freeman of The Guardian, likewise complained the film was awash in the sexism and clichés that, to her, beset movies about fashion in general. She did not, however, directly dispute the authenticity of any aspect of the film." The second sentence strikes me as a touch of analysis. It's not really wikipedia's job to analyze what the author didn't say; it's simply to state what s/he did. Just IMO. Chevinki 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, good call. Gives me more justification for cutting. Daniel Case 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

1. so, you loose the name of action! most of the time analysis is a topic of postproduction, in the film, to look at characters who

pretend without being revealed is tensefull. no reason to cut more. so "who is the mouse and who is the cat" in changing profiles at this level excellent acting means sinthome.$--~~~~$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.48.103 (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast

Not quite sure, but wouldn't it be more convenient having Cast after Plot? The information after Plot (Production) uses the names of the actor a lot, and a normal person without general knowledge of the actors may find it a tad bit confusing. Just IMO :] Lenners 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's per project guidelines and MoS. See WP:MOSFILMS. Daniel Case 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.jpg

Image:The Devil Wears Prada main onesheet.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 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 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there possibly a way to watch the deleted scenes online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.110.189 (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They used to be on YouTube but not anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

reference for future cultural impact section

This was in today's New York Times, and I think it can justify something in this article:

Rozhon, Tracy (2008-03-18). "Upstairs, Downstairs and Above the Garage". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-18. The term 'personal assistant' has been degraded over the years and is now almost synonymous with the overworked, underpaid heroine of the movie and book 'The Devil Wears Prada.' {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Notes to GA reviewer

I am hoping to split the production history off before it is reviewed ... otherwise it is too long. Also expect to copyedit extensively. Feel free to put on hold if not done when you get to reviewing it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA delisted, referred back to GAN

I have delisted this article from WP:GA due to the fact that a proper review was not conducted. The article was simply "passed" by Limetolime and then he deleted his useless comments, which is not an acceptable GA review. The article is now a GA nominee again. When reviewing, please follow the Good Article criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Differences section

I have removed the differences section. The primary reason is that it is all original research. Yes, I know it may be obvious to anyone who's read the book and seen the movie, but, sorry, you still need to have reliable sources talking about the differences that can be verified. It seems trivial, but it's absolutely necessary. Anything passed off as "differences" using the primary source (the film OR book) as a source is considered synthesis and cannot be included. Sorry. --13² 04:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a rather broad interpretation of OR, but anyway ... I'm told that differences sections are really now discouraged by WP:FILM, save to the extent that they can be discussed in the context of creative decisions made during the film's production, some of which is already in this article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how synthesis (a part of original research) is considered a broad interpretation. It is exactly what was being done. People were taking a source, the book, and taking another source, the film, and drawing conclusions on their own. That is exactly what synthesis is. Those conclusions can only be included if a reliable source talks about them, not Susie Smith, a fan from down the street. I do agree with WP:FILM then, if that is the case. --13² 17:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to read this:

Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source. This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries, publication dates, and any other patent information that can be observed from the work. For example, if there are multiple versions of a particular story, and one version does not have a particular character, or has extra characters, that is clear simply by reading or watching the work. The fact that one would have to read or watch the whole thing does not make the matter original research. The work is verifiable, even if it takes more time than flipping to a single page.

Emphasis mine. It is easy to verify that Andrea is portrayed as having attended Brown in the book (especially since that can be cited to a particular page), and that she is portrayed as having attended Northwestern in the movie (it's clear from the opening scene). There is no way that two contrasting observations can be synthesis.

The real reason for eliminating the differences section is that it was decided to be too in-universe to simply list differences (especially because some people were getting down to really indiscriminate ones, like (OK, one that was my fault), Andrea is blonde in the book but brunette in the movie). Since there are almost always changes in any movie adapted from a book or other source, there's really no point in discussing them blow-by-blow in the article without some real-world context in which the filmmakers explain why they made those changes in a reliable source (like the DVD commentary, during which (for this movie) the filmmakers explain a lot of these changes, as the article reflects).

When eliminating these sections from other film articles, use the above reasoning (and links). Otherwise you might unnecessarily agitate someone. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That page is an essay. It is neither a policy, nor a guidelines, unlike WP:OR, which is a policy. Sorry, I'll go with the policy before an essay any day. --13² 13:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a mix of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Technically speaking, side-by-side differences do not advance any position. You could say, "In the novel, John is twenty-five years old. In the film, he is forty years old." It is a basic observation to make. Sometimes common sense dictates basic observations (not just film vs. source material), usually for clarification about a specific item in the article body. When observations are compiled into a section, then it is a sub-topic being introduced that did not exist before, so WP:OR applies for the concept. When we get more granular, looking at specific examples, we ask why this difference exists, which is where WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes in. There are a lot of differences one can draw between a film and its source material. I don't think that every difference has to be explained, but it certainly helps. My personal example is Apt Pupil (film)#Differences between novella and film, which is a summary of major differences (as cited by sources comparing both mediums) with explanations for some of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think WP:OR supports these deletions, for the reasons explicitly cited at NOTOR. Erik is on firmer ground there. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts of Good Faith Edits

User:Daniel Case if you feel that reverting good faith edits is best for the article, please discuss the changes on the talk page. You have every right to disagree with my edits; however, you do not have a right to threaten me on my talk page because you do not like the edits. I find it especially troubling that you said that you would block me if I made any more edits you did not agree with. Please see WP:Administrators It is a clear violation of policy for you to use your administrator privileges (ie: blocking) because another user edited your version of the article. Here is the policy: "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Sorry, but you hardly qualify as a reasonably neutral party as you have been editing this article at least since December, 2006. If you make any further threats, I will file a grievance against you as you are clearly abusing the administrator tools. Again, I am more than prepared to discuss the content of the article on this page. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I should have stated more clearly that I would have taken it to WP:ANEW just to be on the safe side. I could say more, but I accept your more recent wording, and we shall leave it at that. But do try to play well with others in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Devil Wears Prada (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629055703/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2006/06/30/2006-06-30_shes_devilicious_streep_a_delight_as_inf.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2006/06/30/2006-06-30_shes_devilicious_streep_a_delight_as_inf.html

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Devil Wears Prada (film). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Ffashion%2F2006%2F09%2F06%2Fefpatricia06.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.com/who/magazine/article/0%2C19636%2C7401070219-1583696%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/reviews/article1808686.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612165922/http://nbrmp.org/awards/ to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514022142/http://www.hfpa.org/nominations/index.html to http://www.hfpa.org/nominations/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108052342/http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=1516 to http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=1516
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bafta.org/site/page287.html

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Devil Wears Prada (film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125203351/http://www.oficinadeestilo.com.br/blog/wp-content/office.jpg to http://www.oficinadeestilo.com.br/blog/wp-content/office.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907180031/http://www.sagawards.org/PR_070104 to http://www.sagawards.org/PR_070104
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212143553/http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews8/devilwearspradadvd.html to http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews8/devilwearspradadvd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118071708/http://richsommer.vox.com/library/post/fun.html to http://richsommer.vox.com/library/post/fun.html

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) 04:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate Plot Summary

The plot summary says "Andy breaks the news to a hospitalized Emily, who is still unconscious from the incident." This is inaccurate, she is not unconscious (she actually argues with Andy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:680:5F0:4C24:D93B:133E:D071 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be some confusion of the movie plot and the book (where it's Lily, who has a much bigger role in the book as Andy's moral foil, lying comatose in a Manhattan hospital while she's in Paris and her friends basically tell her, choose your job or your friends). Will fix. Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal

Could we split the Miranda Priestly section into its own article. Miranda is a well known fictional character in both movies and novels and numerous reliable sources back up the claim. A basic Google search shows it all. Since Wikipedia has articles for significantly less notable movie/novel characters, not having an article of Miranda Priestly would be totally irrational and it's not Other stuff exists I'm talking about WP:FA and WP:GA as Wikipedia's superior articles which could be referred as a pattern. Bi-on-ic (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There's not really a Miranda Priestly section per se. I don't see any reason to reverse this after three-plus years.

While I'd say it has been arguable for the longest time that Edna Mode didn't need a separate article since the character had only appeared in one film and I might have argued strongly for merging that article back into The Incredibles, that is no longer true since there was a sequel and she was in it.

By contrast, Miranda Priestly has been in just this one movie for which (hopefully) a sequel will not be made. And the novel the film was based on, in which she is a considerably different character in some outer ways, but nonetheless I don't think that would justify a separate article since a lot more people saw/have seen the movie than read the book. It should IMO be a requirement for articles about fictional characters that if they appear in more than one iteration in more than one medium, then we can consider a separate article. While NCHAR doesn't say that outright, I think it's implicit. Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but it's not a rule that the character must appear in more than one iteration to have an article. I think when it's famous and iconic enough it can have a separated article. As we can see here again I know about WP:OSE just sayin'... Bi-on-ic (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This film (and to a lesser extent the book) is one of my guilty pleasures/secrets, so I'm all for expanding the universe - but the question that should be asked is surely "is the character notable", the measure of which can be gained from independent sources. Are there enough sources that expound on the character, especially those that comment on the character when removed from the film.

I also agree with Daniels comment that as she has only been in a single film, there's a limiting factor there. Whilst a sequel has been mentioned there seems very little prospect of it actually happening.

I'm not sure that there are, I think her portrayal is too narrow for her to have mainstream media coverage outside the film - with the obvious exception of comparisons drawn between her and Wintour.

It seems that any article on Priestly would be essentially a stub - which would sooner or later be merged back into the film article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bi-on-ic: It's not a rule, to be sure, but as Chaheel's comment also seems to assent to, it's a pretty good guideline. Do we have any other articles about a fictional character who appears in one movie (regardless of whether they were also in a less well-known work that movie was adapted from)? Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Yes we do have. Miranda has appeared in 2 novels and 1 movie but there are WP articles of film characters with one single appearance: Keyser Söze, George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life), Tyler Durden, Forrest Gump (character), Atticus Finch, Nurse Ratched, Randle McMurphy, Marge Gunderson, Tony Montana, Hans Landa, Inigo Montoya, Anton Chigurh, Patrick Bateman etc... Bi-on-ic (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no specific guidelines about having standalone character articles. In my experience, the more often a character appears in distinct media, the more likely there will be a standalone article, regardless of actual coverage. However, when it comes to one work and one character, there is a lot of redundancy involved. Redundancy is not inherently bad, but changing the scope from film-centric to character-centric means being able to present information (and add more detailed information) in a way that would overwhelm a film article. It may help to have a draft to propose. Look at Google Books, there does seem to be some Priestly-centric coverage here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: Yes. There are articles that psychologically and socially have reviewed and analyzed Miranda Priestly's personage as a 'Boss Lady' or 'Diva'. Bi-on-ic (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bi-on-ic: This is why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best argument. Inigo Montoya and Tony Montana (I didn't look at all of the links you posted yet, just two I had some familiarity with) do indeed appear in a work in more than one medium. But ... those articles are very in-universe. The latter, for instance, discusses what Tony does in the movie, in the process giving us a longer plot summary than the article about the movie itself does. Then there's a shorter section about the video game, then a very short one about another video game he appears in.

There is nothing that discusses the character from an outside-universe perspective, nothing where Stone, De Palma or Pacino talk about creating the character, and no mention of any non-trivial critical discussions or analysis of the character. Frankly both articles read like something more suited to a fan wiki than Wikipedia, and if I was so inclined at the moment I'd suggest that any worthwhile content be merged back into the relevant articles about the works in question. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Firstly I did not want to get into OTHERSTUFF, you asked me if 'we have any other articles about a fictional character who appears in one movie' and I said yes we have. Secondly, Keyser Söze which only has one appearance in one film is a WP:GA and Edna Mode was also a good article BEFORE the sequel's release. These all mean that when Wikipedia's administrators were choosing them as good articles they were aware of the fact that the characters only appeared in one iteration in one medium while Miranda has appeared in a commercially and critically successful film & 2 New York Times best seller and compared to characters with one single appearance like Marge Gunderson, has more notability. Let's not forget that The Devil Wears Prada is a roman à clef which means the character is based on a real life person and it's actually confirmed by the anther in Revenge Wears Prada: The Devil Returns that Miranda is based on Anna Wintour with a reference to Wintour’s friendship with Roger Federer therefore the fact that this fictional character is based on Vogue's editor-in-chief of 30 years, adds more notability to it and discusses the character from an outside-universe perspective as you mentioned. Bi-on-ic (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm starting to come round to the argument. Bi-on-ic puts a good proposal and discussion together. I'm still not convinced that the resulting article would be especially large or detailed, but I no longer see that as a negative to the creation in the first place.

I was going to suggest that Bi-on-ic is simply Bold and creates the article, but I see Erik has suggested a draft instead, which is equally good. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I am also coming round to the argument, though not for any of the reasons Bi-on-ic has advanced (neither an article's recognition status nor when it was granted has any bearing on policies that might apply to the article or others like it, and also it is not only admins who can recognize an article as a good article ... pretty much any user can, although of course that decision is subject to review). Instead, I have reviewed some of the links from the Google results Erik supplied and ... as it happens, some of them are scholarly work that I have already gone to a nearby university library to print out; there's a stack of them on top of some furniture near me. My goal was and still is to write a section on academic response to Devil and add it to the article, which I certainly admit does not need to be any longer.

There is enough there to justify a claim to notability independent of the works and write an actual response-and-analysis section for an article. Where's the draft? Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: >> Draft:Miranda Priestly

Ivanka Trump

Is there any available source for Ivanka Trump having a cameo in the movie as listed in the article? I'm almost positive this is false information, because the movie isn't listed on her IMDB page, and it on hers. I've tried to do various searches to find information/articles on this (as there are a number of articles discussing other cameos like Gisele's), and there are a number of sites that list her as having a cameo, but there isn't any further information anywhere as far as I can tell and I'm wondering if this is bad information that is getting cross-posted on various sites because it was listed here or on one of them.

She's listed as having a cameo up further back than the last 500 edits, so I feel like someone else should have seen this by now, so I'm extremely confused as to if this is accurate information or just a malicious edit someone added tongue-in-cheek with her father being... the president... and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1400:3AA5:34AA:A9DC:4F29:F9B7 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was added as an edit in 2012, I'm going to just go ahead and remove it at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1400:3AA5:34AA:A9DC:4F29:F9B7 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump can be clearly seen talking with Nigel, standing behind Valentino in this youtube video clip of the Paris party scene. See timestamp 2:05-2:08. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30rnemvPqA8== Ivanka Trump == See timestamp 2:05-2:08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.167.7 (talk • contribs)

"Andrea Sachs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andrea Sachs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz Jones isn't actually linked to the film

The Liz Jones article doesn't actually claim any link to the film. It's just her talking about the film. This is just a WP:DAILYMAIL review - which as a deprecated source would be prima facie WP:UNDUE - and doesn't really warrant mention on its own merits. It's just Jones saying "gosh, it was a lot like this!" I think this source should go. I see someone else wanted to remove it recently too.

Daniel Case, you talked about getting the article to FA. In this case, this is a deprecated source that isn't WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSPS or anything like that. Deprecated sources without much better justification than this really aren't going to help at FA. Does this review do sufficient load-bearing work? I don't think it does - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thanks for coming over here and weighing in ... you know I always value your opinion.

I reread it and I think you are right ... I was going to say that Jones' perspective was valuable as she was the only person who'd worked as a fashion magazine editor, but then I saw that it wasn't, that we have the editor of Marie Claire speaking to this as well, and frankly her comments are more on point to the film, since they talk about the sort of women who work at fashion magazines, and the relationship between editor and assistant, which is what the film is more accurately about.

I think I will move Jones' comments to the stand-alone article we have now on Miranda Priestly, since they'd be more relevant there. Or at least I will be soon when my work for the census is over.

I still have hopes of getting it to FA, but as with so many other things this year the pandemic got in the way and my life off-wiki has not returned to a sufficient level of normal yet. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Budget

The Infobox says the budget was $35 million and includes several references to support that figure.

The article text previously said the film had a budget of $41 million but it wasn't clear where that figure comes from, so an editor changed the figures to match the Infobox.[1]

I was able to find references to $41 million budget from Variety[2] and from Time magazine.[3] (I'd make an educated guess that the cost of reshoots is not being included in the lower figure in Hollywood they cannot even be sure which lie they are telling).

Template:Infobox film says not to cherry pick budget figures. It seems as if the $41 million budget figure should also be included. -- 109.76.194.75 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We could probably put it in as the other end of a dashed figure. I don't think they did a lot of reshoots, if any, on this one; I've never come across anyone involved saying there were any. The extra $6 million might well be marketing costs, which you usually don't apply to the budget until after post when you've gotten a version to release. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be skeptical too but Variety is the trade paper. You're right they don't actually say budget they say "cost", and they know the difference. Do we have any figures on the P&A or marketing spend?

I do think we should list the budget range in the infobox but ideally I'd prefer to properly explain the discrepancy in the article body, whether it turns out to be Production costs or Marketing cost or something else. -- 109.76.141.49 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't found any explanation for that discrepancy, and given that studios aren't required to, nor are they in the habit of, releasing even general breakdowns of how movie budgets get spent (for the famous example where a detailed budget was leaked to the media, see Sahara (well, see the article, not the movie ... Actually, I have seen the movie, and it's fun in a goofy sort of way; it's certainly more watchable as a whole than the other Cussler adaptation to make the big screen, the utterly humorless Raise the Titanic) we're not likely to find a source clarifying that.

My hunch at this point is that the $35 million figure might be in the movie's press kit, which I've never thought about even seeing if I could find for what it might have that might be worth being in the article that journalists or editors deemed unworthy of reader's attention.

Lastly, it occurs to me that resolving this disparity and whether marketing/distribution costs account for it might be a question well put to the combined expertise over at WT:FILM. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

After the Sony Pictures hack there were quite a few films where we got very detailed breakdowns of the budgets. Lawsuits sometimes reveal more figures than the studios would like, in the case of Mad Max Fury Road it eventually became clear that the two different budget figures came down to a contract dispute between the director and the studio, whether or not reshoots should be counted as "budget" or not. There are many films where we never get any proper answers but sometimes we get lucky and find the right sources and are able to explain the different figures. Often it is something as simple as an early budget statement from the studio versus a later statement from the trade papers (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, etc) saying the figures were higher than the studio wanted to officially admit. As previously suggested the lower budget might represent the negative cost only, and the higher figure might include marketing and other costs.

It would be great if we could pin down why we have two figures, but even if we can't that's okay too. My point was to make sure that figures were not being ignored (because {{Infobox film}} warns not to cherry pick) and to at least try and ask the right questions about what the two figures might actually mean.

I had hoped to conclude with some good references but although I found a few things that I thought were vaguely interesting[4][5] my searches did not throwup anything specifically relevant to this budget or cost question unfortunately. -- 109.76.151.99 (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Right in front of me, after all that searching, the Indiewire article already referenced in the Infobox[6] clearly explains:

We got the green light at $35 million but that only gives you New York. They said: “You will not be shooting in Paris, don’t ask, as long as you’re on this lot, never mention the word Paris.”

... but the article goes on to explain that when things were going well they did get the chance to go to Paris and ...

The final budget was $41 million."

It if was up to me I'd only include the final figure of $41 as stated by Elizabeth Gabler, head of Production at Fox. If I understand the rules correctly there would need to be a local consensus to omit the lower figure before so I'll take the path of least resistance and include the budget range of $35-41 million. -- 109.78.193.228 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we can go with that. Since they did get to go shoot some scenes in Paris (though not all the ones set there, as the article explains), they might well have gotten the extra budget.

If we don't already, we can say the initial budget was $35M inline and the final budget $41M. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the budget range to the Infobox, and made a few adjustments to the article text. People might want to adjust the text or rephrase which is fine by me, but I think the facts and figures are all covered, which is what I had hoped to achieve. I think this matter has all been nicely resolved and I think I'm done here, so I just wanted to conclude this discussion and sign off. MmmKayThanksBye. -- 109.77.209.137 (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Appreciate it! Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssonalis, Grace g23, Daalexandram, Kaykrag (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Fburke 5378, CharlieFarrell74, Barnanimall, Amine.louri.

— Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Themes

adding themes to film. Ssonalis (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)