Talk:Cleopatra (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment 1[edit]

Isis, will you please explain why you keep changing "Marc Antony" to "Mark Antony"? The IMDB entries for both films (1934, 1963) list the "Marc" spelling. --Brion

Because Wikipedia uses "Mark Antony." -- isis

The article has to be at one spelling or another; that doesn't mean others are incorrect or not allowed. If the character is spelled with a "c" in the movie, that's how we should report it. --Brion

I've watched all of these movies all the way thru, and I assure you the English spelling of "Marcus Antonius" is not mentioned in any of them. We're not "reporting" on something -- we're referring to someone whose name Wikipedia has decided to spell "Mark Antony," just as it decided to call Henry VIII's 1st, 5th, and 6th wives "Catherine" no matter how they spelled it, or Sir Walter Ralegh "Raleigh" when he never spelled it that way himself. Nobody said "Marc Antony" was "incorrect or not allowed," but it's inefficient, because it requires a redirect to the "Mark Antony" article. I didn't pick the spelling, I'm just trying to abide by what's been decided. -- isis

Nothing's been "decided", that's just how that article got initially named. As with British / American spellings, there is nothing wrong with using either the spelling "Mark Antony" or "Marc Antony". There's no real reason not to stick with "Marc Antony" here (or anywhere else where it was initially spelled that way), when we have redirects or pipe links (eg, Marc Antony) available it all goes to the same place. The apparent use of the -c spelling in the credits (if IMDB is correct) lends additional support, but unnecessary, to the initial use of -c in this article. You don't have to change it. --Brion

Hmm. That's an interesting issue. If the name of the character were itself created by the book or movie, or appeared in the title, then I'd agree we should use it that way. But if the name is one of larger significance than the work in which it appears, I see no reason to necessarily make the same decisions about it as the work. I think there's some room for judgment here. If "Marc" appeared in the title, I'd use [[Mark Antony|Marc Antony]] in the text, but he doesn't in this case; he's just another character who is a historical figure, and we should use whatever spelling of that historical figure's (or city's, etc.) name we have chosen in the Wikipedia at large, presumably for good reasons. If the difference is drastic enough that it might be confusing, you might mention it: "...set in Torino (then more commonly known as 'Turin')...". But it might be better just to rely on the link to explain the variants, in which case the case for using Wikipedia's general version is even stronger. --LDC

When I asked why the Azores isn't the "Azore Islands," I was told the former is more common, and Wikipedia uses the most common form. I think the point Brion is making is that "Marc Antony" is more common than Mark Antony, and I think he's right about that. (I may be prejudiced by having taken 3-1/2 years of Latin in high school, but I know I prefer the "c.") So how about letting Brion move what's in the Mark Antony article to "Marc Antony" and then go change all the links to it? -- isis

Gaah! My point was that we don't have to change the links, since both spellings seem to be common! :) --Brion

Before any such move is made some research needs to be done. Searching only in English language websites gives: 3,100 for "Marc Antony" Rome and 7,220 for "Mark Antony" Rome. But I do think we should still use the "c" spelling in the Cleopatra (movie) article since that is a valid alternate spelling and was the spelling used in the movie. --mav

I'm on the side of, "if imdb lists it with that spelling, keep it that way." There's a redirect that works, let's use it. -- Zoe

I removed the reference to Claudette Colbert's milk bath from the 1934 movie, since that is from DeMille's 1932 movie, "The Sign of the Cross." I didn't realize the edit summary wouldn't allow me as many words as I needed to explain it, so I am adding my rationale here.

Ron from Whidbey island

Just curious.[edit]

If the 1917 print was destroyed, then how is there a vidcap of the same film? :-) Is that an on-set photo? --Madchester 00:10, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I doubth there's any "vidcap", as video tape wasn't invented until decades later :-) If you're talking about the image illustrating the article, as Image:ThedaBaraCleopatra.jpg explains it's a scan of a photo printed in a period magazine. -- Infrogmation 05:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bold text


I propose a merge with Cleopatra (disambiguation). It would look like this. Any thoughts? AndyJones 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Well, on one point both the previous version of this page before I fixed it just now and your proposed version are in violation of Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines. On disambiguation pages, the titles of actual relevent articles should be evident to casual new users, not hidden. So whatever is done, it should be modified to keep that in mind. That said, the external links section on this page suggests that there is something to be said about the general topic of film depictions of Cleopatra in additon to the individual film articles? -- Infrogmation 14:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian Cleópatra/2008.[edit]

There is the Julio Bressane film, that is the winner of Brasília Festival 2008 ( the more important festival from Brazil).

There are an article in Wickipedia in portuguese about this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)