Talk:Gold Diggers of Broadway

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

It's not really necessary to go into detail on this page as to how the Technicolor system worked, is it? The Technicolor page, to which this is linked to, does a good job of that already. The Photoplayer 05:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for doing this were not to change the Technicolor pages, which I had a scan through and although much improved contain points I would have liked to see clarified, so I enlarged information about the particular version of Technicolor used on the film just for this entry. The section needs removed, but I would be pleased to see the Technicolor entry enchanced with more of this detail a few points clarified and I would have to dig out far more references at the moment and don't have time.

Just some of these would things like:

• transfter process made underwater
• roller pressure used to force imbibition
• wash jets uised to control dye strength
• matices could be rewashed and reused
• printing was a continuous non stop process (reels printed in batches in sequence)
• print quality problems in 1930
• lack of definition due to dye spread
• discontent with quality (New York times hostile reviews - See review for 'Woman Hungry' as an example)
• The two color process did not use a key image (ref SMTPE minutes)
• The floating dye troughs were only used for cemented prints, the matrices were dyed in tanks (see Colour Cinematography - 1951 AB Klein)
• The taking filters were improved so they could be removed and replaced with different combinations for outdoor work to prevent a green sky being recorded.
• The print definition was improved in 1931, using combined improved processing methods ands a faster film.
• The price for a single feature contract was $50,000 non refundable.

Excellent points and I share your enthusiasm for adding this important information. If you could do me a favor and please post this on the Technicolor talk page as a "to do" list, I'd be ever so greatful (and I'm sure people would oblige by looking up the proper sources and then adding this information to the page. At that point, we can remove the information from here and add a "see Technicolor page for more information" note. The Photoplayer 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you. My main reason for not adding to the Technicolor page yet is that each point really needs to be properly referenced and it takes time to do that. The probem with Technicolor is that there isn't much written on the subject and recent books have muddied the waters. To provide more than a scant listing would involve a lot of careful and complex referencing. Most previous Internet attempts have concentrated on the camera mostly, but haven't menntioned much about the transfer machine. To prevent movie fans enthusiastically contesting information, citing authorative references might be the best answer. SMPTE articles are very useful in this regard as being written at that time. Klein's book 'Colour Cinematography' gives an incredibly detailed description of the transfer process. --Emitron1 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

The Fairbanks Twins, Madeline & Marion

It seems that there is some debate as to if this picture:

...is from Gold Diggers of Broadway or from On with the Show. According the the Vitaphone Project website, it is (or at least, it's on the same spool as the other section of Gold Diggers of Broadway, I assume). I know of the guy who owns these clips, so I will email him and find out for sure which is where.

Which also comes to mind-- none of these clips have proper notation as to where they came from. Who was responsible for the content information? We'd better label them correctly before they're deleted. The Photoplayer 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All the clips bar one are from the recently found color nitrate. The Vitaphone site labelled the clip of the two girls as from 'Gold Diggers of Broadway. As a b/w print exists of 'On With the Show' exists and matches, it can be determined that this shot is from that film. --Emitron1 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which begs the question: was this on the Gold Diggers roll (and if so, why?). If it was on the Gold Diggers roll, do you think it's possible that perhaps this is a stock shot reused from On with the Show or vice versa? They have it labeled as the former, but this seems like an error on their part. The Photoplayer 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you make a very good point. The audience shots for both films (and Sally) are all photographed from the same session. It may have been a re-use of footage. However the sequence with Winnie Lightner and Albert Gran takes place away from the stage setting according to the soundtrack. The actual clip of the girls does appear just before the other dressing room shot in On With The Show so my guess is it wasn't labelled properly. :::--Emitron1 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. In speaking to the owner, it is from On with the Show. The Photoplayer 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just watched On with the Show again and your right it is there towards the end (it's a very short sequence). I just moved it to the right page. Thanks. Vitaphone 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this "talk" page, and find it somewhat amusing and equally curious that anyone who considers themselves moderately expert in both Vitaphone and musical films (and this excludes Emitron1) would be perplexed by the photograph's origin. More time spent viewing (and enjoying) these films would yield effortlessly gained knowledge, far more than just collecting and cataloging them in the same way one does stamps or baseball cards. The eccentric dance routine depicted is so unique, and the performers so unusual (twin girls,) that even a casual viewing or two of the film should have immediately identified the source at first glance of the photo. -Vitaphone1

Sign your statements with a ~~~~ four tilda signature next time.

The confusion was initiated by experts (the Vitaphone Project). While some of us were pretty sure that the clip was from On With the Show, there was no published source to proove that at face value. That is why (a) we rewatched the film and (b) asked the owner. Now those particular evidences may be used as sources. The Photoplayer 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know signatures had to manually added, but thanks for your genteel reminder. Too bad this page didn't exist earlier than it did, as any confusion would have been cleared up straight off. I was the fellow who forwarded the frame grabs (courtesy of the owner) to Ron Hutchinson of The Vitaphone Project for inclusion in the newsletter and website, and I suppose the word "Show" threw him off, for it was misidentified in the printed newsletter as being from "The Show of Shows." The error was corrected, although not soon enough. All that aside, I suppose the only hard "evidence" anyone really needed to identify the still/footage was some degree of familiarity with "On With the Show," easily gained via a viewing or two. Jeff (vitaphone@aol.com) aka Vitaphone1 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the new additions to this "talk" page, and find it somewhat amusing and equally curious that anyone who considers themselves moderately expert (i.e. the so-called Vitaphone Project) in both Vitaphone and musical films (and this excludes Emitron1) would be perplexed by the photograph's origin. More time spent viewing (and enjoying) these films would yield effortlessly gained knowledge, far more than just collecting and cataloging them in the same way one does stamps or baseball cards. The eccentric dance routine depicted is so unique, and the performers so unusual (twin girls,) that even a casual viewing or two of the film should have immediately identified the source at first glance of the photo but the silly so called experts there pretend it is from "Gold Diggers of Broadway." I've been looking at the Vitaphone Project website and have been quite amused at the numerous mistakes and errors that these so-called experts have made. One wonders where the so-called donation money (that this website is seeking) is actually being spent on.Vitaphone 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The misidentification of the still in the Vitaphone Project newsletter was a typographical error. As to funding and allocation of private donations, I won't even qualify this with a comment other than to direct you to the portion of the web site that details titles that have been restored and preserved only because these funds exist. Then too, there's much to be said for people who have dedicated themselves to selflessly seeking out and rescuing material that might otherwise be lost, with the ultimate goal being that this material is made widely available and once again reintroduced to the general public. Sadly, there are those who look upon these films merely as ripe additions to their own personal collections, which they can then snatch up and sell, or use as trading fodder. Fortunately, the motives of these ghouls are always ultimately discovered. Always. Vitaphone1 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Feather dusters at 400 yards? I hope perhaps we can move away from denigrating other people's efforts. I only want to restore detail on this film and others for the good of everyone, so that we can have fewer film histories that proclaim talkies only got off the ground properly in about 1933. All of the early Vitaphone and Movietone films desperately need entries which inspire people in the 21st century to seek them out. There is much to be enjoyed from 1927 to 1932 and this is perhaps the most neglected period of film history. I'd think there are more silents out on DVD than earely talkies from this period! --Emitron1 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gdob6.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

An editor has been attempting to add Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation to the "studio" parameter field. I have been reverting this with an edit summary which points out that Technicolor was not a film studio or a production company, but the editor returns a few days later to re-insert it. I asked him on his talk page to stop, but he or she did not respond, as, indeed, they have not responded to anything on their talk page.

So, the question here is: should Technicolor be listed or not? Opinions? BMK (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor responded on my talk page to say that unless I was a "founder" of Wikipedia, I should "back off". I've asked them to make their argument here that Technicolor should be included in the studio parameter. BMK (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, IMDB doesn't list Technicolor at all, TCM lists them under "Color" as does AFI. In the early days of color, a Technicolor technician would be involved with the shooting, and since this is a very early color film, I have no doubt that was the case here. But that doesn't make Technicolor a "Production Company" or "Studio", it makes them a consultant. BMK (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

They're not a studio or a production company and shouldn't be treated as either. We wouldn't list Dolby as being either for a film using their sound technology, nor IMAX for a film shot with one of their cameras. I'd say remove it, keep it out, and if the editor in question continues to add it despite its clear factual invalidity, then treat them as any other instance of someone repeatedly adding blatantly false material to an article. GRAPPLE ^X 23:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

^^^What Grapple said. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am not among the founders of Wikipedia, but can confirm that Technicolor wasn't a studio, and thus can't have been the studio for this film. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

On a similar note, I see no evidence that Vitaphone should be in there either—it seems to be the same kind of thing, a licensed technology rather than a studio. GRAPPLE ^X 22:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little vague about the historical relationship between Warner Bros., First National and Vitaphone. Of course it all ended up being Warner Bros., but I don't know how it got there. I'll do a bit of research. BMK (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's clearer now. Warner Bros. and First National were separate studios, and Warners eventually bought out First National, keeping the brand for some period of time. Vitaphone was a sound process, invented by Western Electric, and owned by Warners. It should not be in the "studio" parameter either. BMK (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

@Beyond My Ken: You have now removed ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[failed verification]} tags three times without providing specific information on the source of the content. There is a single reference for both paragraphs in the Technicolor section [], and that reference does not support the content. It was added by AVarchaeologist as the “best web cit” for a pre-existing unreferenced section that had previously been tagged as unsourced. I did not tag every sentence per your request when you removed the ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[failed verification]} tags since that is not standard Wikipedia practice See: Wikipedia:Citation needed:

Unless you have very good reason to suppose otherwise - it is fair to assume that a reference at the end of a paragraph refers to the whole paragraph, and a reference at the end of a sentence refers to the whole sentence. If your work has been tagged … If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source. You may leave the copyediting to someone else, or learn more about citing sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners provides a brief introduction on how to reference Wikipedia articles.

Here are the specifics you requested for regarding the first paragraph of the Technicolor section:

1. Sentence 1 – "The Gold Diggers of Broadway" not mentioned anywhere in the Technicolor History section of the cited URL.
2. Sentence 2 – can be extrapolated, but not all content is verified on the cited page.
3. Sentence 3 – set selection and costume color palettes are not mentioned in the reference section cited
4. Sentence 4 – film sensitivity (which you refer to as speed) and camera speed (I assume by which you mean the maximum aperture and per frame exposure duration), is not mentioned
5. Sentence 5 – “white on the matrix film and dye transfer problems” is not mentioned

You have a portion of one out of 5 sentences that is marginally supported by the one reference you cite. The entire paragraph is unsupported by the single reference. You need to specifically provide the source of the information or else it should be deleted. If you cannot provide something more specific as to the source of the content, then it constitutes original research and should be removed. N0TABENE (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. You've got 754 edits and you're certain you know what the Wikipedia "standard practice" is. I've got 145K+ edits and I'm not always certain what it is -- sometimes it's just whatever works best. In any case, you've provided a breakdown of your objections in a different way than I suggested, and that's really fine with me. Since I was the editor who re-wrote the section, using only the citation in question as a source, your analysis doesn't seem right to me, but I don't have the time at the moment to go through the paragraph with your comments in mind. Probably I'll have time to do so on Monday, my day off, so please hold off on taking any extreme action. There's nothing in the paragraph that's particularly inaccurate (as opposed to unsourced) so I see no reason to change anything for the moment - a few days isn't going to make any difference. BMK (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not the quantity but the quality of edits. Anyone can use a bot and fix 100,000's of extra spaces. And yes, I have only 754 edits ... under this account. I see you've had multiple other accounts - maybe other editors have had as well? I digress.... you've asked me to "please hold off on taking any extreme action", yet you deleted the ^{[failed verification]} tag without providing the requested source reference, and after being cautioned not to make changes unless adding missing references. You should have left the tag pending correction of the unsourced content. That alone warranted an escalation to a Level 3 or 4 Warning. Further, any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. I'm not sure why I should accede when you've been less than professional in this matter. Regards, N0TABENE (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the shit out of the paragraph, and every sentence (and sometimes parts of a sentence) is now sourced. I sincerely hope that you enjoyed your part in making the article less interesting and informative for our readers. Please have a pleasant future editing career. BMK (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I simply asked for appropriate citations of the content that you claim you PERSONALLY wrote, not a random URL. YOU wrote the material and decided on the content, if it's less interesting and less informative, then the fault lies with the writer. If you would have given the citations in the first place this could have been avoided. Suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Oh, and thanks, I have and I do, IRL N0TABENE (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a dispute about which poster should be in the infobox. Since both are non-free, they cannot be posted together here for side-by-side comparison, so please take a look at

• 1: File:GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg, which has been in the article, versus
• 2: File:Gold Diggers of Broadway poster.jpg, which was recently inserted.

BMK (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any difference between them. 79.18.120.178 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? One has a black background, and the other has a royal blue background. On one, "Warner Bros." is clipped at the top, on the other it isn't. BMK (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The editor needs to scroll down to see the 2/20/2014 version. The 12/5/2015 version matches the one recently uploaded. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's choice per his statement that it is "better resolution, better color". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, we may have been victims of a technical problem where new uploads don't update properly. Many people (maybe most, maybe all except me) are seeing the new uploaded image under the original filename. I am not, despite having purged my cache repeatedly. This is why I re-uploaded it under a new filename. BMK (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Opinions are still welcome, but I think the technical snafu has been ironed out. BMK (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Refimprove tags were added to sections that had no sourcing at all. Several of these were removed without explanation, or edit summary and without providing additional sources. Several failed verification tags were altered by the same user who deleted the section hatnotes, so that they were unreadable. This user has had a problem in the past with providing WP:verifiable sources. Either provide citations which have the information claimed in the text or the material should be deleted. Simply deleting properly placed tags is inappropriate. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 06:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your statements are incorrect. Plot sections in film articles are never sourced. The "Songs" section is sourced except for those that are marked as needing citations. Failed verification was approproaite only when there was a statementsaying that "all songts" were written by Burke & Dubin - it no longer says that. Now the songs by Burke & Dubin are distinctly marked, and the source of that is reffed. The songs which are not marked are marked as needing a citation. This is perfectly legitimate. BMK (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, care to explain your revert? czar 02:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the first dictionary I grabbed off my sefl (Webster's New World, Second College Ed., 1982) gives:

"use ... (1) to put or bring into action or service; employ for or apply to a given purpose..."

"utilize ... (1) to put to use or make practical use of; get profit or benefit from by using..."

So, when dealing with mechanical processes, such as color filming, "utilize" is the better choice, as it's specifically about making practical use of the process and gaining a benefit from doing so, as opposed to the more generalized "use". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

@Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929, Ssilvers, and Beyond My Ken: Bringing you folks here. @Ssilvers: Thanks for notifying me at my talk page.

@Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929: As I see, you've been expanding the Plot section. Have you considered complying with MOS:FILMPLOT, or is there a reason to make exceptions per WP:GUIDES? I know the film has been partially lost and that the least we can do is hear near-complete audio track of the film. Still, I can't help wonder whether certain details about almost every scene is necessary.

I'm thinking the ones done by now-expired ~2025-43856-86 (talk · contribs) and ~2026-22672-5 (talk · contribs) had been also your handiwork as well as other temporary accounts, right? Let's compare this old revision (link) to the other current one (link).

BTW, dunno how long you've been editing outside what I see in your contributions log. George Ho (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Almost any temporary account after November 4, 2025, but before the creation of my account was my work. I do see that there are unnecessary details, and I will work on fixing that. But all I ask is that you do not undo all my edits. I have worked hard to make this page a better, and more truthful place. There were many things that were wrong on the page prior to my heavy editing, and all my edits were done out of good intentions. So please, give me a bit of time, and I will work on making this page a better place, for all of Wikipedia. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your response. Please do not wait long on trimming the plot, as the plot summary is at least twice as long as it should be, and people from Wikiproject Film will want to trim it, if you do not. Also, please check the citations that you added, as many are incomplete. All citations should include the name of the author, title, name of publisher and date of publication (except where any of this information is not available). Material from books or any non-web sources should also include page numbers. Finally, you added some paragraphs that do not cite a source, which leaves them vulnerable to deletion. Good luck with your editing endeavors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I have been trimming unnecessary parts to the point that if I would remove any more, it would be missing major plot details. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment There is a perfectly serviceable MOS-compliant plot summary in the article pre-dating November 2025. I suggest restoring that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  The plot before that had a lot of things that were wrong. I suggest not doing that. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  The plot details could be corrected. You don't need to double the length to fix the summary. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  It had many important elements of the story missing as well. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The YouTube user Old Films and Stuff is a self-published source. Per WP:YOUTUBE, we need to be very careful about using link to certain uploads as well as citing them (WP:RSPYT). In this case, perhaps you can move YouTube links to "External links" section... and remove the whole section about that channel/user. Same for the other YouTube link you've been citing for the Plot section. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no website that gave as much of a correct explanation as I did. Most websites had either an iteration of the incorrect plot that once existed on this page, or a plot that is too brief to cite.

Old films and stuff was not opinionated, and rather was just displaying the fragments of Gold Diggers of Broadway that he had found. I am not sure how else to talk about the fragments found without mentioning him. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The Plot section is impermissibly long. If you do not shorten it to about 700 words, we should return it to the October 2025 version, as User:Betty Logan suggested. Also, again, please make sure all the sources you added include the name of the author, title, name of publisher and date of publication (except where any of this information is not available). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The user has been still working on it. Let's give this user some time before suddenly or rushing into reverting back to what it was. Please? George Ho (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. As long as they are actively working to shorten it, we can hold off on that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no website that gave as much of a correct explanation as I did.

I may recommend you to read the essay WP:RGW over and over before continuing to treat this project as a place to "right great wrongs".

Most websites had either an iteration of the incorrect plot that once existed on this page, or a plot that is too brief to cite.

Other than user-generated (and wiki-based) websites, to which other websites have you included as part of [m]ost websites?

Old films and stuff was not opinionated, and rather was just displaying the fragments of Gold Diggers of Broadway that he had found.

The fragments themselves are still part of the primary source itself, Gold Diggers of Broadway. I dunno how technically skilled you are in uploading fragments clips of the whole partially lost(?) film. Indeed, why not upload the clips to Wikimedia Commons? George Ho (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that websites, some of which include blogs and user based websites such as Hometowns to Hollywood and NickLucas.com were websites that used a similar iteration of the plot used pre-editors associated with me. The reason I am saying that the old version of the plot is bad is because it had many important details of the story missing or had them in the wrong order. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I am very appreciative that you did not immediately delete all of my edits, as I have not only edited the plot section. I have edited many sections, some of which had false information. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I also would like to know if anyone has anything that they think is specifically unimportant to the story. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I have done all I possibly can. I have eliminated it to 1,075 words, compared to something around 1,500 words. Everything that is left is crucial to the plot. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Umm.... You may wanna compare how you've written and expanded plot summary to those of other musical films, like Singin' in the Rain and The Wizard of Oz. Also, despite 1,000 words or even 700 words, you might still wanna eliminate an unnecessary detail, especially since every ending of every character's story is already spoiled. George Ho (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

What unnecessary detail are you talking about? If I remove anything else, it would be songs, characters, or main plot points. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

[left]. I removed a lot of the excess comings and goings -- if a character speaks, obviously they are in the scene. Also, when a character sings in a musical, the convention is that they "saying" the text. They are not specifically singing unless it is specifically a performance within the story. See if I interpreted which is which correctly from what you had written. We also don't need to say that someone is worried about an ongoing problem. Just present the problem and the resolution -- in between, we don't need to say that Jerry is still worried about whether Steve will or won't, for example. The reader will assume that the problem still exists until we tell them that it is resolved. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Ssilvers. I thank you for not jumping to conclusions and deleting all my work. I did add a few little things that were very important to the story, but other than that, you did a good job. I think I really have learned from this experience, and I thank you for that. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has quite a learning curve, but if you are patient, I think you'll enjoy contributing here. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the Cissy grey plot line has to stay because Mabel referenced her later in the movie. She was the reason she wanted to marry Mr. Blake for love. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but I've contextualized it a bit. As for quoting Mabel's line, it doesn't seem necessary, but I decided to leave it for now. But if you keep adding things, I'm going to take it out. The point of the Mabel line is not what she says, but rather that she can't memorize one little line, and that it doesn't matter because she is so charming when fluffing it that the audience is enchanted anyway. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Unsure whether to call it "charmingly" or "charming". Indeed, the old revision before the temp accts. (done by, admittedly, the user named after the partially lost film) still had this quote: "I am... I am... oh, darn it, I've forgotten that second line!" I replaced it because, at first, it wasn't necessary. George Ho (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The way it's drafted now, we need an adverb -- charmingly or disarmingly. Or else the sentence needs to be rewritten. "Begins the line but then forgets the rest with disarming charm." Or something like that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Or, if all else fails, i.e. other options have been exhausted, perhaps change back to the previous status quo, i.e. the one where Mabel exactly said this at the end. (Hoping for WP:EDITCONSENSUS, honestly.) George Ho (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

George, which language do you recommend, exactly? I like the current version for conciseness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Umm... I'll probably back down on changing the current version for now unless someone else thinks that "charmingly" violates the WP:OR poicy, which has a passage about evaluating primary sources carefully. "her line"... I hope it refers to that "extra line", right?

Personally, I would've written this:

begins but forgets the extra line given to her earlier

or:

begins but forgets the line, despite rehearsing it over and over

Nonetheless, again, maybe I'll back down on the current version for now until the issue is re-raised by someone else then. BTW, I've watched the found footage of the film with surviving audio over and over. George Ho (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Happily accepts is the same as charmingly forgets. We are, necessarily interpreting the plot. OR doesn't apply to plot summaries, which are 100% or, in that we read/watch/hear an artwork and summarize it, emotional content and all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In the film, she said it with a bit of a frustrated tone if it helps at all. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, MOS:FILMPLOT links to WP:PSTS, a shortcut to a section of the OR policy. It also quotes how to use primary sources carefully. Also, plot summaries aren't listed among WP:OR#What is not original research. —George Ho (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• My thanks to all those working to improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)