1017:"an all encompassing film/radio/theatreography "of all Welles work, as you allege. That's why there's a link to a separate filmography/discography/radiography - and if you follow those links, you'll see just how much detailed info has been shunted there, to keep this navbox clear. This navbox seeks to link together all the articles relating to works directed by Welles - like a navbox on a director is supposed to. The articles linked by the navbox are also a work in progress, like pretty much everything on Knowledge (XXG), so it should come as no surprise that the navbox includes major topics for which articles haven't yet been written - for now. This is no different to, say,
373:
eventually everything on the navbox will have an article linked to it, just when I get the time - the
Radiography it links to, for instance, is still incomplete. The one thing I would say is that I'd prefer to keep the redlinks, because they encouraged other Welles enthusiasts to share the workload of filling in the gaps - as it is, it'll just be left to me to fill out the gaps, which means it will take longer, and in the meantime Knowledge (XXG)'s readers will lose out!
22:
469:- as you can probably guess, I disagree with this view. But the main reason why the debate persists is that much of Welles's later work is not easily obtainable (for a variety of reasons explained in the articles themselves), and so a clear sense of chronology in the navbox helps put things into perspective. Additionally, Welles's unfinished projects were often long-running (Don Quixote took nearly 20 years to film), and so by deleting the
393:. Welles is considered a great artist as a director. But he personally financed a lot of his films from the fees he received from acting in any rubbish that would pay him. To this end, he acted in a lot of really, really bad films. If people want a list of his bad films, that's what the filmography is for. This navbox has been structured to include everything which he directed. Yes, even sometimes his directorial work (like
1103:
do not need to be included again. I'll make the point again. This is a navbox, not an article. A good comparison is Ingmar
Bergman - his navbox does not include any of the "notable" theatre productions he directed. Also, the same for Olivier, whom you mention above. Please don't take this personally, but navboxes are not supposed to be all-encomapssing overviews of someone's career, the way you want it to be. --
71:
53:
1125:. I was trying to be fair, and I gave a few articles the benefit of the doubt. However, Welles is mentioned in the lead of the former, and it seems that Welles was instrumental in the original conception, so maybe it should stay. If this is not the case, then it should go. With the latter, he appears only to have directed an adaptation, so this should definitely not stay. --
81:
721:
linking to the main
Macbeth article, as again, Welles's interpretation on both film and stage is discussed there, as significant adaptations of the play. Like it or not, the articles on Shakespeare's plays aren't just about the plays themselves; they cover the production history and interpretations, too.) You can't seriously be suggesting that anyone clicking on an
377:
featuring 100% original footage of the film in rehearsal, and of Welles at work as director. Numerous scholars consider this to be a significant short film in its own right, of note for its original cutting, narration and photography. Randomly deleting the link to this is unhelpful. Similarly, randomly deleting the link to the ballet
764:, a wholly original play by Welles which rearranges lines from five different Shakespeare plays, often out of context, to create a completely new narrative. I could cite many other instances, but I've written for long enough. If you check my contributions over the last few years, you will see that I am the author of a
1041:, or the half-dozen other projects Welles wrote a draft script of which was later rewritten and made by someone else? Only they don't seem terribly relevant or notable to a list of his works - and yet you've removed some major Welles works, for an arbitrary, personal interpretation of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines.
1220:
There is no policy based reason why this navbox can't embrace authorship, but since his directorial career had a substantial span across several different mediums, I think extending it to cover other aspects of his career is an unnecessary complication. I think it would be better to limit this navbox
863:
in this navbox. Just because Welles happened to direct a version of the play would not meet this criteria. There are plenty of other precedents. It's not the number of links that I'm disputing, it's the relevancy. Debonairchap seems to want to use this navbox as if it were a list article. That's
557:
Sorry, but your reasoning for continuing to remove plays from his directorial efforts because he was not their author is farcical. Welles is notable as a director. Not all directors write all of their material. Look at the above navboxes of directors. Are you proposing to remove half of their work as
495:
Firstly please note that this is a navbox, not a full filmography, or a complete list of every play he has directed. Therefore redlinks (or unlinked information) is not appropriate. It is also not appropriate to link to say, Othello the play, because this links to
Shakespeare's play and as it would
1102:
Okay, I may have made some errors, but there is no way that the
Shakespeare plays should be linked here, and only existing articles should be included in a navbox. There's no reason not to include the books he's written in the template, but screenplays which are already included in the films section
793:
I've got to agree with
Debonairchap on this one. The navbox seems well organized and therefore not unwieldy. And, of course, a navbox is the perfect place to put a lot of information in an outline form. Perhaps it could be set to default as collapsed to avoid overwhelming the articles in which it is
476:
In the absence of any strong guidelines either way on dates, I'd respectfully ask you to leave this in the hands of those of us who have taken considerable trouble over the years to add some high-quality content on Welles to this site; and to not pick on Welles in particular, given that almost every
265:
It’s not a minor dispute, elsewise
Bogdanovich, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and even Welles himself wouldn’t spend so much time disputing it. The fact that they continue to flat-out deny Welles as director seems to indicate that many people do continue to dispute the idea that Reed alone directed it. I also
808:
Debonairchap's pomposity is absolutely astounding! The accusations of vandalism are completely misguided. It isn't about the subject matter - the issue here is the misuse of a navbox to be an all encompassing film/radio/theatreography - this is not what they are for. Please familiarise yourself
751:
Again, you appear to be significantly out of your depth in jumping to conclusions on all this. Please leave it to those of us who have some knowledge of the material, and so can form a judgment as to whether or not the navbox is accurate. For instance, you took out the WPA/Mercury playscripts from
1216:
As for years, again it seems to me they do not serve the purpose of aiding navigation. Someone who is interested in going to the
Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil page doesn't really need to know what years they were released. As long as the article is already sufficiently identifiable, years are not
1076:
the case. The
Othello article contains a navbox for "Tony Award for Best Revival (1977–1993)". Nobody's suggesting Shakesperare's play won this award, it was the 1982 Broadway production which did. By your reasoning, that navbox should be deleted from the article, and since it contains a link to
376:
Your proposed edits also seemed to suffer from a lack of familiarity with some of the material; for instance, you deleted a link to the 1941 Citizen Kane trailer, categorised under "Short films". This is not your average movie trailer; this was a self-contained three-minute film in its own right,
280:
Again -- there appears to be no dispute among reliable sources. And they do not "spend so much time disputing it." On the contrary, from everything I have read, everyone dismisses it out of hand -- and seems to address it only because there is a fringe minority who try to popularize the myth. You
720:
article discusses Welles's interpretation, and as such, provides the reader with information on that production which they would not otherwise have. (As for your example of the
Macbeth film and the Voodoo Macbeth stage show, if these Knowledge (XXG) articles didn't exist, then it would be worth
1080:
Obviously that's farcical. Yes, Knowledge (XXG) has guidelines to try to rein in the enthusiasm of people like me, so that when we write content we can conform to a neat and tidy, neutral set of guidelines. But the guidelines are there to suit the material in the articles, and in this case, to
372:
Firstly, I take your point on redlinks - I've converted all of them to black text for now. The point is that this navbox needed serious work when I started working on it (and more importantly, in my writing most of the many, many articles it links to), and so it's a "chicken and egg" question;
290:
article to the effect that: there were some claim that Welles might have directed the film, but that the idea has been refuted by Reed, Greene, Korda and Welles himself, and that film historians have dismissed the claim as false. However, adding the word 'disputed' to the film templates only
1068:
be in the Welles navbox, and with navboxes being bidirectional, the Welles navbox should definitely be included at the bottom the main Othello article. That's not just a rule for Orson Welles - it goes for other theatre directors of major productions, like John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier,
945:
Here is a thought: How about if Robinson transfers the information in this navbox to an Orson Wells Works (or some similar title) article and then pares down the navbox itself (but adding a link to the new article)? Would this be a possible result that both of you could live with?
1034:
as "written only" by Welles, when the article makes it clear that Welles's script was never used in the final version made 14 years after his death, which bore only the faintest resemblance of recycling a few character names; and so if we're going to list that, why not
711:
article, this is fully justified under the circumstances: As noted in the scholarly works of Michael Anderegg and Richard France, Welles's contribution as both an interpreter and a populariser of Shakespeare is significant, and for that alone, the navbox should link to
1158:: "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first", "Unlinked text should be avoided", and "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". --
1023:
You've deleted most of the books listed, for no clear reason. Rather than get into a futile edit war over this, I've removed the last remaining ones, and put them all into a separate bibliography, to save space. I also agree with another user's deletion of the decade
291:
popularizes a fringe claim, and your additions to articles on Reed and Welles appear to promote something which scholarly consensus has determined is false. I am still interested in hearing exactly what Bagdanovich says on the DVD. What exactly does he say?
1139:
Just a thought, but in order to preserve the information, why not create an article showing all of Welles's theatre work, as this is a much more appropriate way of including this into an encyclopedia, rather than try to bloat this already large navbox.
285:
Rosenbaum takes exactly one sentence to dismiss the idea as a "popular misconception" (page 24). As already mentioned, the key players themselves -- including Welles -- also dismissed the idea. I have no problem if you wish to add a statement in the
1185:
I would like to point out that navboxes are not supposed to ape encylopedic articles, they are purely a navigation tool i.e. a hub of connected articles that may be of interest to the reader. To this end, I always feel the simpler the better with
1081:
facilitate navigation around often-complex topics. Since it's clear that you seem, at best, only vaguely acquainted with this topic, I would beg you to think very carefully before imposing arbitrary judgments (especially when they're demonstrably
1027:
Unfortunately, you've taken it upon yourself to recategorise things having, at best, only skimmed the corresponding articles themselves, meaning that your new design has a number of factual inaccuracies. For instance, you've inexplicably listed
166:, page 220), Welles specifically said he made only minor contributions to the film -- and stated the film was all Greene, Reed and Korda. Without any reliable citations or references, this "dispute" is fanciful rumor and violates WP policy on
649:. Under your new format, there's a claim of authorship which wouldn't be present if my original format was retained. Incidentally, your format's also highly misleading, since it includes a number of films undoubtedly directed by Welles, but
1077:'Othello' the play (not the 1982 production), that should be unlinked from the navbox, and since that would then be a redlink, that should be removed from the navbox, and the navbox would apparently say that no Tony award was given in 1982.
215:
DVD opens with Peter Bogdanovich declaiming that Welles had nothing to do with the film and that most reviews insist that Reed, not Welles, was the author, prove there’s a dispute, otherwise, there’d be no need to counter these claims.
770:
volume of Wikpedia material on Welles's work, whereas as far as I can see, all you have done so far on this topic is delete material for spurious reasons. Please stop meddling in and vandalising something you clearly don't understand.
385:
to be a major work) is also unhelpful, particularly on the spurious grounds that it was a "play which he did not write or have something to do with the original production" (he wrote, directed, lit and set-designed the production).
210:
It’s against Knowledge (XXG) policy to take sides in a dispute. To not present one side is to take a side by omission. It’s only in keeping with policy to mention the dispute but not endorse one side or the other. The fact that
1087:
imposed elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG)) in sweeping deletions. Or if you really feel strongly about launching this one-man crusade on navboxes, why not start off by picking on some other, less contentious articles/navboxes?
725:
link marked "(1951)" (a disambiguation date which you, incidentally, don't want to see included at all, for what you admit is simply a personal preference) will think that Welles was really the author of an Elizabethan
1048:
is not a Welles play, but you've left it in: It was written by Mark Blitzstein (not Welles), and Welles simply directed the first production of it, in a blaze of publicity. Yet you've arbitrarily removed
399:) was hack work too, but that's a value judgment of mine, which I can't make in this navbox. The vast majority of his directorial efforts were serious work he had control over, and it is by linking to
518:
had a revival in New York in 1962, which wasn't his work. You'll find all the supporting references in the articles, but generally, I've used the ultra-authoritative chronology of Welles's career by
1241:
I reserve the right to reconsider my opinion based on ensuing feedback, but I believe Betty (as usual) makes very good points and would support revising the template in consideration of them.
682:
You're inventing new rules which aren't applied anywhere else on Knowledge (XXG). Nowhere is it said that directors have to be the author of their own work for it to count as their work.
246:
DVD, and if Bogdanovich does state that Welles was the director and not Reed, that would certainly by a significant reliable source for this claim. What exactly does Bogdanovich say?
456:
and in each case, the result was "No consensus" - some people, for instance, feel that years are essential, but clustering in decades (which we both agree on here) is unnecessary!
160:
This is clearly false -- there is no reliable source for this claim. All books and documentaries only mention Reed. More importantly, in his 1969 interview with Peter Bogdanovich (
849:
Well, for a start: "every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional" - i.e. taking
500:: "every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional", we cannot include it here. --
403:
of his work as a director across different disciplines that the reader can get a sense of Welles as an artist - which is why he is still studied in film schools the world over.
1217:
neccessary. I'm aware many navboxes include them, but this is an attempt at enhancing its encyclopedic value, not its navigational function, so it is basically redundant.
1191:
If an article doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in the navbox. If someone creates the article one day, they can add the page to it when they add the template to the article.
236:
In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.
1053:, which was written by Eugène Ionesco, and Welles directed the first English-language production of it, in a blaze of publicity. What's the difference between the two?
314:
believe it’s a Welles film. Alot of critics seem fairly defensive in asserting otherwise. Why so defensive if it’s so obviously false? This should be treated like the
1198:
article should not be linked to from the navbox. If you wouldn't put the navbox on the article itself, then the link shouldn't really go in the navbox either. The
463:
essential in the case of Welles. An ongoing argument among critics is whether or not he was a burnt-out one-hit-wonder who didn't produce anything of note after
752:
the list of books written by Welles. (It's something I intend to write an article on later.) These aren't just edited Shakespeare scripts; as well as Welles's
1205:
The navbox is expressly for linking articles, not sections. Therefore articles and navboxes should have a one to one relationship. There are already links to
975:
I must have misinterpreted your "There would be no problem in including these in, say, an article called List of plays directed by Orson Welles ..." comment.
993:(or similar). Not sure if it would meet notability in its own right (although it might), but maybe it could be included elsewhere? Bergman's is on his
864:
not the point of navboxes, that's what articles/filmographies/etc. are for. There would be no problem in including these in, say, an article called
873:
1269:
369:
There've been a number of edits to this by Robsinden which I believe leave the navbox suffering both in terms of content and presentation.
266:
wasn’t aware that Schneider was a fringe essayist. I noticed his article in the reference section, and thus thought it an adequate source.
1274:
869:
619:
is not appropriate, as this article is Shakespeare's play, and has nothing to do with Welles. However, it is appropriate to include
99:
410:
and by way of a few examples, I'd simply point you to the Navbox of pretty much every well-known director on Knowledge (XXG), i.e.
230:
You are incorrect about Knowledge (XXG)'s standards on neutral POV and its need to provide all viewpoints. Please read the section
242:, it was speculation by fringe essayist Dan Schneider, this claim fell under "tiny-minority views." However, I have not seen the
156:
Some user accounts are persisting with a claim that there is some "dispute" which states that Welles, rather than Reed, directed
1064:
a version is notable, and is actually cited in the main Othello article as a major staging or reinterpetation, then it should
33:
323:
271:
221:
161:
990:
865:
310:
Why waste so much time dismissing it if it’s a mere fringe claim? Clearly, the idea has some traction. Most people who view
578:
not Orson Welles's stage production of Othello. Are you suggesting that everyone who ever directed a stage adaptation of
111:
103:
107:
94:
58:
835:
O.k., I've read WP:NAVOBX. It says, among other things: "templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden"
535:
Yes, I take the point about authorship, but (a) that's precisely why it's important to stress this infobox is about
994:
543:, Welles is actually discussed in the existing Knowledge (XXG) article, under notable performances/interpretations.
395:
980:
951:
909:
840:
799:
319:
267:
217:
39:
1093:
776:
602:
is wholly appropriate in the navbox, as this is an article specifically on the Orson Welles production of
563:
548:
485:
356:
302:
257:
201:
1226:
1222:
528:
187:
1210:
1206:
1163:
1145:
1130:
1108:
1002:
976:
966:
947:
923:
905:
902:
the Orson Wells navbox should appear on the Othello page when the navbox includes a link to Othello
881:
836:
826:
795:
628:
607:
587:
505:
183:
810:
497:
1030:
894:
the Othello page should be in the Orson Wells navbox when that navbox appears on the Othello page
519:
473:
of dates given for these unfinished projects, you've eliminated the sense of overlap with these.
342:
231:
1246:
1089:
772:
559:
544:
523:
481:
348:
315:
294:
249:
193:
1037:
558:
well, because they didn't write it all? This is an act of vandalism. Please undo, or I will.
539:
work - that way, no claim of authorship is made, and (b) for many of these plays, including
1155:
818:
814:
171:
167:
1213:
in the films section, there is no reason to provide them again in the section for plays.
1159:
1141:
1126:
1104:
998:
962:
919:
877:
822:
624:
598:
583:
501:
1263:
318:
and dissenting views should be treated the same way that the JFK article treats them.
287:
1242:
465:
382:
175:
496:
be inappropriate to include this template on a play by somebody else, and as per
98:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1250:
1230:
1167:
1149:
1134:
1112:
1097:
1006:
984:
970:
955:
927:
913:
885:
844:
830:
803:
780:
632:
591:
567:
552:
509:
489:
448:
The question of whether or not to add years has been discussed several times at
431:
359:
327:
305:
275:
260:
225:
204:
86:
613:
is also appropriate, as this is Welles's film adaptation. However, linking to
413:
1221:
to directed work, and perhaps create another box to cover authorship credits.
1202:
article is about Shakespeare's play, not the version of it directed by Welles.
989:
Ah, no, I see what you mean. You're suggesting that we do create the article
855:
as an example - it would have to be appropriate to include this navbox on the
437:
179:
76:
70:
52:
1195:
514:
P.S. I already have excluded productions Welles wasn't concerned with, i.e.
440:
422:
1018:
868:, but it simply isn't appropriate here. Have a look an one editors reply
450:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Navbox#Years_after_films_in_navboxes
434:
416:
813:
and learn how they are supposed to be implemented. Also, have a look at
572:
No - You're wrong I'm afraid. Article was linking to Shakespeare's play
115:
449:
443:
428:
425:
851:
615:
574:
419:
406:
Regarding your removing years, no mention is made of this as a rule at
961:
No - we don't need an extra navbox, we just need to tidy this one. --
341:(outdent) For the sake of expediency, I have moved this discussion to
345:
to allow comment by other interested editors. My response is there.
453:
637:
No - you're wrong, I'm afraid. You've turned a navbox on work
15:
918:
Per the guideline, "the navigation is bidirectional". --
477:
other director's navbox isn't subject to this treatment.
238:
Given that you previously failed to provide any sources,
239:
997:, although I'm not sure that's wholly appropriate. --
407:
623:
in a list article of Welles's stage productions. --
582:
should have their Navbox included on that page? --
234:on the NPOV policy page. The accepted standard is:
432:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Peter_Bogdanovich
414:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Alfred_Hitchcock
657:, so by your own definition it doesn't stand up.
438:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Stanley_Kubrick
441:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Terence_Fisher
423:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Jean_Negulesco
281:mentioned Jonathan Rosenbaum. In his 2007 book
114:. To improve this article, please refer to the
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1019:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Maurice_Elvey
174:. I've removed all mentions of a dispute from
435:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Roger_Corman
417:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Billy_Wilder
389:It's also vital that it covers his work as a
182:, and from the associated film templates for
8:
444:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Woody_Allen
429:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:John_Huston
426:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Jerry_Lewis
420:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:David_Lean
110:. To use this banner, please refer to the
47:
1011:The aim of the navbox I have provided is
240:and when you finally added one yesterday
49:
991:List of plays directed by Orson Welles
866:List of plays directed by Orson Welles
454:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:FILM
92:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
38:It is of interest to the following
1060:example proves my point exactly -
14:
381:(considered by Welles biographer
124:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film
108:regional and topical task forces
79:
69:
51:
20:
532:. 15:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
1117:I may have been generous with
898:is not the same as saying that
408:http://en.wikipedia.org/Navbox
1:
1270:Template-Class film articles
1251:14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1231:12:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1168:09:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1150:09:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1135:09:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1113:09:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1098:05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
1007:21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
985:19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
971:14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
956:17:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
928:14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
914:17:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
886:16:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
845:13:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
831:01:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
804:17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
781:17:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
760:, it includes the script of
633:16:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
592:16:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
568:16:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
553:15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
510:15:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
490:15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
1121:, I may have been harsh on
876:regarding use of dates. --
707:As for linking to the main
641:by Orson Welles, the noted
1291:
396:In the Land of Don Quixote
1275:WikiProject Film articles
522:at the end of Welles and
360:15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
328:15:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
306:19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
276:19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
261:17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
226:06:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
205:16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
127:Template:WikiProject Film
64:
46:
1044:By your own definition,
645:, into something called
596:For example, linking to
365:Major edits by Robsinden
283:Discovering Orson Welles
653:written by him, i.e.
1119:The Cradle Will Rock
1046:The Cradle Will Rock
647:Work by Orson Welles
529:This is Orson Welles
320:CharlesFosterKane123
268:CharlesFosterKane123
218:CharlesFosterKane123
163:This is Orson Welles
1211:Othello (1952 film)
1207:Macbeth (1948 film)
859:article to include
516:Moby Dick-Rehearsed
100:join the discussion
1031:The Big Brass Ring
520:Jonathan Rosenbaum
343:talk:The Third Man
34:content assessment
524:Peter Bogdanovich
316:JFK assassination
149:No dispute about
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
102:and see lists of
1282:
1038:Monsieur Verdoux
995:filmography page
358:
354:
351:
304:
300:
297:
259:
255:
252:
203:
199:
196:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
95:WikiProject Film
89:
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1260:
1259:
480:Kind regards,
459:Dates are also
379:The Lady in Ice
367:
352:
349:
346:
298:
295:
292:
253:
250:
247:
197:
194:
191:
154:
129:
126:
123:
120:
119:
85:
80:
78:
12:
11:
5:
1288:
1286:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1234:
1233:
1218:
1214:
1203:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1152:
1137:
1115:
1078:
1070:
1054:
1042:
1025:
1021:
977:Butwhatdoiknow
948:Butwhatdoiknow
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
906:Butwhatdoiknow
899:
896:
891:
837:Butwhatdoiknow
796:Butwhatdoiknow
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
606:. Linking to
599:Voodoo Macbeth
594:
366:
363:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
158:The Third Man.
153:
147:
144:
143:
140:
139:
136:
135:
133:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1287:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1033:
1032:
1026:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:
986:
982:
978:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
897:
895:
892:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
862:
858:
854:
853:
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
792:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
724:
719:
715:
710:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
612:
610:
605:
601:
600:
595:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
531:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
472:
468:
467:
462:
457:
455:
451:
446:
445:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
411:
409:
404:
402:
398:
397:
392:
387:
384:
380:
374:
370:
364:
362:
361:
357:
355:
344:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:The Third Man
309:
308:
307:
303:
301:
289:
288:The Third Man
284:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
258:
256:
245:
244:The Third Man
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
214:
213:The Third Man
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
200:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
164:
159:
152:
151:The Third Man
148:
134:
130:film articles
117:
113:
112:documentation
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1199:
1182:
1122:
1118:
1090:Debonairchap
1083:
1082:
1073:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1045:
1036:
1029:
1013:
1012:
944:
901:
893:
872:. Also see
860:
856:
850:
773:Debonairchap
766:
765:
761:
757:
753:
722:
717:
713:
708:
655:The Stranger
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
620:
614:
608:
603:
597:
579:
573:
560:Debonairchap
545:Debonairchap
540:
536:
527:
515:
482:Debonairchap
479:
475:
470:
466:Citizen Kane
464:
461:particularly
460:
458:
452:and also at
447:
412:
405:
400:
394:
390:
388:
383:Simon Callow
378:
375:
371:
368:
340:
311:
282:
243:
235:
232:Undue Weight
212:
176:Orson Welles
162:
157:
155:
150:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
1223:Betty Logan
1123:Rhinocerous
890:To say that
767:significant
716:. The main
611:(1948 film)
537:directorial
87:Film portal
1264:Categories
1160:Rob Sinden
1154:And, from
1142:Rob Sinden
1127:Rob Sinden
1105:Rob Sinden
1066:definitely
1051:Rhinoceros
999:Rob Sinden
963:Rob Sinden
920:Rob Sinden
878:Rob Sinden
823:Rob Sinden
762:Five Kings
625:Rob Sinden
584:Rob Sinden
502:Rob Sinden
180:Carol Reed
116:guidelines
104:open tasks
1200:King Lear
1196:King Lear
1186:navboxes:
1072:And it's
811:WP:NAVBOX
498:WP:NAVBOX
794:placed.
643:director
639:directed
391:director
353:Writer |
299:Writer |
254:Writer |
198:Writer |
30:template
1243:Doniago
1183:Comment
1074:already
1058:Othello
1024:breaks.
861:Othello
857:Othello
852:Othello
754:Macbeth
723:Othello
718:Othello
714:Othello
709:Othello
621:Macbeth
616:Macbeth
609:Macbeth
604:Macbeth
580:Othello
575:Othello
541:Othello
1156:WP:NAV
819:WP:AGF
815:WP:OWN
758:Caesar
350:Cactus
296:Cactus
251:Cactus
195:Cactus
188:Welles
172:WP:BOP
36:scale.
821:. --
809:with
726:play?
471:range
168:WP:OR
28:This
1247:talk
1227:talk
1209:and
1194:The
1164:talk
1146:talk
1131:talk
1109:talk
1094:talk
1069:etc.
1056:The
1003:talk
981:talk
967:talk
952:talk
924:talk
910:talk
882:talk
874:here
870:here
841:talk
827:talk
817:and
800:talk
777:talk
756:and
629:talk
588:talk
564:talk
549:talk
506:talk
486:talk
324:talk
272:talk
222:talk
186:and
184:Reed
170:and
121:Film
106:and
59:Film
1084:not
1014:not
651:not
526:'s
401:all
1266::
1249:)
1229:)
1166:)
1148:)
1140:--
1133:)
1111:)
1096:)
1062:if
1005:)
983:)
969:)
954:)
926:)
912:)
904:.
884:)
843:)
829:)
802:)
779:)
631:)
590:)
566:)
551:)
508:)
488:)
347:—
326:)
293:—
274:)
248:—
224:)
192:—
190:.
178:,
1245:(
1225:(
1162:(
1144:(
1129:(
1107:(
1092:(
1001:(
979:(
965:(
950:(
922:(
908:(
880:(
839:(
825:(
798:(
775:(
627:(
586:(
562:(
547:(
504:(
484:(
322:(
270:(
220:(
118:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.