Talk:Dirty Work (1998 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dirty Work (1998 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Film: Canadian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Lange Comedy bit

This is a funny and true bit of info. Artie Lange, co-star in dirty work, does an onstage comedy bit now where he asks the audience if anyone has seen the movie Dirty Work. Artie then walks up to the people that raised their hands and gives them 20 dollars while saying, "There's your refund!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.81.26.49 (talk) 2004-09-30T07:01:39(UTC)

This is on Lange's DVD It's the Whiskey Talkin' Image Entertainment 2004 ASIN: B0006ZXTRK. During the main 47 minute comedy set at the Tempe Improv (Arizona), event occurs at 22:18. --Lexein (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Chase talk

Chevy Chase, during an April 6, 2001 talk given at Harvard University as part of a lecture series on political humor, suggested that one possible reason for the film's box office flop was that the studio had cut several of the more outrageous gags out of the script before filming. One scene Chase specifically mentioned involved MacDonald and Lange taking revenge on a football team by leaving a plate of donuts in a conspicuous location before practice. The football team devours the pile of donuts, only to see at the bottom of the pile a Polaroid photo of MacDonald and Lange with their pants down and the donuts piled on their erect penises. (Source here, around the 1:00:00 mark) A version of the script's deleted scenes can also be found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.13.158 (talk) 2006-03-19T08:39:35 (UTC)

The Harvard IOP link has moved here. But the embed media link http://iopforum.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/iopforumadr/2001/040601B.rm is dead. Oh internet, is there nothing you can't lose? --Lexein (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sections without discussion

Trivia sections should be integrated into the text as prose. I've done some of that in the past. Unfortunately, people keep adding trivia back in. Deletion of the section is not a solution. The reason the trivia is added, is people don't see the information in the article. So, to accomplish the ultimate goal of "no trivia", put in a little work and copyedit the trivia into coherent prose in the sections for production, reception, history, etc. Straightup deletion of trivia which has citations is just rampaging, and will be counted as vandalism. --Lexein 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: ditto. I will revert any undiscussed, non-consensus-reached deletion. A careful reading of WP:TRIVIA indicates the desirable retention of cited material which can be incorporated into the rest of the article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for wholesale deletions of sections with cited content. --Lexein (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OWN is not a reason for wholesale reversion. However, in the interest of compromise I have incorporated the cited information in appropriate places. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Find it funny that there is, in fact, no longer a Trivia section. AndrewJacksonLullaby (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a well integrated article, trivia sections aren't needed. The facts, if supported by RS, should be incorporated into the prose. I just prefer that some effort at integration occur rather than deletion. Thx to Nikkimaria, for that. --Lexein (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dirty Work (1998 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/20110930205944/http://howardstern.com/rundown.hs?j=n&d=1221710400 to http://howardstern.com/rundown.hs?j=n&d=1221710400

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]