Talk:Goodfellas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture

What's with the picture? I removed it. Can someone put in a real picture. --yeah, they keep putting up the fake picture, instead of the real, non-racist, one. Damn dirty apes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.171.138 (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

High

IMDB top 250, Won several oscars Andman8 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"DeVito thoughtlessly shoots an innocent and unarmed young man, Spider (played by Michael Imperioli), in the foot for not bringing him his drinks fast enough during a card game."

This was not the real reason. DeVito harrassed Spider for not bringing him a drink in the first place because S misheard D. --Vindicta 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Stacks pays for Screw-Up

I haven't seen the film and would like to know who is the "Stacks" that Tommy DeVito kills for messing up. Was it Stacks Edwards or Tony Stacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jienum (talk • contribs)

It is Stacks Edwards, played in the film by Samuel L. Jackson. Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Aah, the Mace Windu man. Thanks.

GoodFellas vs Goodfellas

Shouldn't Goodfellas redirect to GoodFellas, and not the other way around? The name is clearly GoodFellas, and the article refers to it as such. Oreo man 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDb, the correct official name is "Goodfellas". "GoodFellas" was a promotional title only, used on the video box and posters. Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Either version is acceptable. --Nqnpipnr

"Themes" section may have to go

The section labeled 'Themes' is full of citationless interpretation. Here is one of the offending paragraphs:

Other viewers, however, find that the character that they can sympathise most with to be Paul Sorvino's Paulie Cicero, the Capo of this particular crime family and the boss of the neighborhood. Though he can be seen as a menacing criminal who makes a living through extortion, Paulie is not as impulsive or treacherous as his sociopathic underlings. For many, Paulie's fate illustrates the lack of honor within the criminal lifestyle, since he's the only honorable character and he ends up in prison. Indeed, while many gangster films would put such a character in the forefront, Paulie is a supporting character without much of a role in the film other than highlighting this central theme. (Of course, such analysis ignores the fact that Paulie abandons Henry when Paulie is on parole, and that his abjuring drugs is solely self-preservation.)

You can just see one person typing their take, then another lobbing their counterpoint via the sentence at the end. Wikipedia isn't a message board - anybody else support lopping this entire section? --relaxathon 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of themes seems perfectly valid for Wiki. In fact, point-counterpoint is one way Wiki reconciles competing views. In fact, you have a view of Wiki that is itself undocumented. Feels like you're just wrapping up your own personal preferences in a veil of what's Wiki-appropriate. As such I've removed the tag you added today.
I agree, the themes section should stay. I actually added the section myself & I agree with the last comment, it's entirely appropriate. Gives someone who hasn't seen the film some knowledge they might like to have before viewing it. The problem is when someone decides to get too wordy in their explanation or adds all manner of pointless details and that seems to have happened in the paragraph relaxathon has pointed out. However, themes like the ones in there now can be interepreted simply by watching the film, not every single little point needs to be documented. For instance, the idea of Cicero's gang being the working class mob is quite easy to see when one watches the film. The paragraph relaxathon pointed out begins with "Other viewers". WHAT other viewers are we talking about? Yup, that one probably should have a citation tag. Tommyt 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotta go with tommy up there. I think the section (probably due to all the revisions since he originally wrote it) is poorly written. Really needs to be tightened up. Someone should do that while leaving the interps largely intact.

I just took the initiative and deleted the section. It simply reads like personal opinions, many of which are dubious (e.g. it treats The Godfather as the only previous gangster film that matters when in fact the 'working class gangster' genre has existed since at least Public Enemy (1930). Cop 633 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary

What the hell is up with the summary? It reads like a movie review or something.


Yeah, and the Themes section is weasely beyond belief.

Accuracy item

"in real life, Tommy and Henry met at high school and became close friends long before meeting Jimmy" -- according to the real-life Henry Hill's commentary on the DVD of the film, "right after I met Jimmy, I met Tommy. He was attached to Jimmy back then." (at 15:56 in the movie) I don't know whether that's a more accurate source than the source used by the article, but it seems likely to be accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.25.67 (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

That section of the article seems dubious. They were 7 years apart, but they met in high school?--Dcooper 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Misinterpretation? Henry was the one in high school, when he met Jimmy. Maybe Tommy was still in high school, but Jimmy was older than Tommy and Henry. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Henry and Tommy did not meet in high school, Jimmy introduced them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisamcgill (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Trivia item "truth"

The entire Trivia section is rife with items comparing differences between the movie and “real life”. I cringed while reading almost every item… things coming from Henry Hill’s book can not be accepted as absolute fact, he has contradicted himself in interviews regarding these items and also randomly added “facts” to his stories to make them more interesting. This section needs to be significantly cited (more than it is now) but even then I’m not sure I will be comfortable with it. If the OJ book was released… would that be citable as what must have literally happened?Gwynand 17:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT Henry Hill's book. It was Nicholas Pileggi's book. Pileggi merely interviewed Hill, and quotes Hill in the book.206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of trivia, in the very begining of this article where it is describing what the movie is, all the sudden and completely out of the blue is the line "the word fuck is used 300 times". I'm sure it is properly sourced, and I have no problems with the word fuck in general, but it's completely out of place. Maybe move it to a trivia section?98.204.216.178 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture refs

If the Pop ref section stays in, mentioning the homage/parody in the Simpsons where Nelson takes Bart through the back entrance to their table Goodfellas style would be a good one to cite. Are these sections maintained anymore, though? Krupo (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia discourages unsourced lists of Trivia and Popular Culture references, I'm moving the list here for now until can be sourced and integrated properly into the article--J.D. (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Goodfellas formed the basis for the "Goodfeathers", characters that were part of the cartoon TV series Animaniacs. Bobby was a caricature of Robert De Niro (although more like his character in Taxi Driver than Goodfellas); Pesto was a caricature of Joe Pesci (he constantly does the "You think I'm funny?" routine); and Squit, the main character, was a parody of Ray Liotta (he started every cartoon with "As far back as I can remember").
  • Michael Imperioli, who went on to star as Christopher Moltisanti on The Sopranos, did a scene in the episode "The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti" where he enters a bakery in a bad mood and the clerk at the counter is not serving him; he gets angry and shoots the young man in the foot, reminiscent of the scene in which Imperioli's character is shot in the foot by Pesci's. When the clerk begins to complain about being shot in the foot, Imperioli's character replies "It happens", further cementing the reference.
  • The video of "Foolish" by R&B artist Ashanti is also a parody of Goodfellas. It has the scene where Henry and Karen go into Copacabana through the kitchen, followed by the famous "What do you do?" "Construction Worker" discourse, as well as the scene where Karen's mother throws Henry out, followed by many other scenes from the movie.
  • In the hit video game Grand Theft Auto III, billboards can be seen throughout Liberty City advertising a movie entitled "Badfellas."
  • An episode of Minoriteam was a parody of Goodfellas, featuring Corporate Ladder in the role of Ray Liotta, and one-time character, Half-Pint, in the role of Joe Pesci.

This list found its way into the article again. Here's the latest version.--J.D. (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A number of hip hop media from album skits to music videos have directly taken quotes and scenes from this film. Listed below are some references made by hip hop artists towards this film.

  • In the album The Firm by Nas, AZ, and Foxy Brown, quotes from this movie are referenced in the track "Firm Fiasco", a track produced by Dr. Dre and Chris "The Glove" Taylor.
  • In the Ashanti music video "Foolish", several scenes from this film as well as Ray Liota's character "Henry Hill" is referenced by Terrence Howard's character in the video doing similar things to Henry.
  • Mack 10's album "Based on a True Story" has an opening intro which is based on dialogue spoken by Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci when Pesci's character murks the waiter.

Plot summary

I've drastically trimmed the very long plot summary. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, you definitely overdid it. If you look at other plot summaries, they have considerably more detail, including good articles and featured articles. I don't have time to select what needs to be restored, but I hope you will consider doing so. If others express similar opinions and some of the summary isn't restored in a reasonable period of time, I probably will revert it to the previous version. But I'll wait for other opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
So will I. I'd really rather see someone attempt to write a more encyclopedic plot summary than the one I trimmed down from. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The other one has problems, but it's better than your version (nothing personal). Ward3001 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded a bit to cover the main events, without turning it into something resembling a blow-by-blow account of the movie. It could certainly stand more expansion, provided it doesn't again get filled up with trivial matters. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


The choice seems to be between this 1000-word piece and this much briefer outline as a starting point for improvement. I've put up a Request for comments to get further input on the subject. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Something in between the two would be ideal, but I (and so far apparently no one else) don't have the time to rewrite it. Maybe the RfC will result in some rewriting help. Ward3001 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that while the first one was too long, the second was a tad too concise. I have never seen the movie, so I can't actually make suggestions, aside from very generic ones. The League of Copyeditors might be a good place to start (although I know Tony is active there) just as a second set of eyes.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Something in the middle, but if I had to choose between the two it would be the shorter one. Dlabtot (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll come back to this article soon and, if nobody else has tackled it, I'll try to produce a compromise on this page for discussion. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here goes:

Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) idolizes the Lucchese crime family gangsters in his blue-collar, predominantly Italian neighborhood in East New York, Brooklyn, and in 1955 quits school and goes to work for them.
Henry is taken under the wing of the local mob capo, Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino) (based on the actual Lucchese mobster Paul Vario) and Cicero's close associate Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) (based on Jimmy Burke) who help to cultivate Henry's criminal career.
Henry's friends are depicted as daring and dangerous. Conway loves hijacking trucks, and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci in his Academy Award-winning performance based on Thomas DeSimone) has an explosive temper and a psychotic need to prove himself through violence. At one point, he humiliates and then murders an innocent and unarmed young man "Spider" (played by a then unknown Michael Imperioli).
The film charts Henry's rise within the mob through cleverly executed robberies, and the mob code which prevents him and other members of Irish descent becoming "made men," full members of the crime family. The events in the film include his part in the 1967 Air France Robbery at JFK airport, the brutal 1970 murder of the family "made man" Billy Batts (Frank Vincent), and the 1978 $6,000,000 Lufthansa heist, also at JFK, as well as quieter scenes such as his regular visits with his girlfriend to the famous Copacabana Club. After a life of crime, and falling out of favor with the family, he turns informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and gives evidence against his former associates Conway and Cicero in court. He laments that he now has to live the rest of his life "like a schnook", after being given an anonymous identity by the Federal Witness Protection Program.

To my original trimmed down summary [1], I have added the parts from the present summary that describe the connections with the real life mobsters depicted. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some comments on this before inserting it into the article, but if there are no comments by 5th February I'll probably try inserting it. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No further comments, so I've inserted it. Please revert and discuss if this is unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Comment - Quoting you, Tony Sidaway, "I've drastically trimmed the very long plot summary." I've been watching to see where you were going with this, and just checked up today, it doesn't look good. I agree that you drastically changed the plot, and I don't believe you gave proper reasoning for eliminating a plot summary to was put together over time by editors. You basically just said it was too long, and deleted it. The current version you have now is woefully inadequate, and even as a basis for something more, is certainly not better than what we had before. The plot is way too generic, with sweeping statements liks "Henry's friends are depicted as daring and dangerous. Conway loves hijacking trucks, and Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci in his Academy Award-winning performance based on Thomas DeSimone) has an explosive temper and a psychotic need to prove himself through violence." This is borderline WP:OR. I was tempted to put back in the old summary and suggest you work from that one, as opposed to what you have currently constructed, but I realize that might come off as hostile and would possibly not appear to be assuming good faith. After all this, I guess my questions is, how do you think you have improved the article from what is was before? Trimming for the sake of trimming is not a good policy.Gwynand (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well a number of people above have agreed that something between the old summary and my initial effort was probably required. Moreover the plot summary had been tagged as overlong, without anybody doing anything about it, for about nine months.
The sections you quote as "borderline original research" are in fact from the old plot summary.
The plot summary is improved in my opinion by changing it from a blow-by-blow account of what happens to a more encyclopedic summary of the plot--that is, it describes the content of the plot without attempting to recap the narration. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you and the others regarding problems with both plot sections, I was just concerned when I saw the newly offered plot summary on the page today. I had concerns with the wordiness and interpretations of the longer plot as well, and some of those have transfered to the current state. We are trying to cut down on wordiness and unimportant details, not simply length. The sentence "Henry's friends are depicted as daring and dangerous" is wordy and unnecesary, among other things, and I admit you did get it from the original plot summary. I feel like you have taken unnecesary items from the old plot summary, i.e. sweeping generic statements about events or characters that don't really tell us much, and you eliminated some specific important plot points that would warrant inclusion as enyclopedic content within the scope of this film article. My overall point is that this article needs less sweeping interpretation of the plot and more straight descriptions of events. While I haven't personally contributed to the plot, I am writing this here in order to help you and others when editing the plot section. I guess my point is... we are off on the wrong foot for getting to a great plot summary.Gwynand (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Are any specific plot details missing from the current version that you believe should be present? --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Suggested Plot Summary

Here is my version. I worked from the old, longer version, eliminating a few pointless parts, some rewording, eliminating actor names altogether (redundant as the cast and characters is listed below). I tried to remove as much interpretation as possible. I've left in the various important plot points of the movie which I consider notable as coming from a popular and culturally significant movie. I think we should work from this plot summary, trimming and rewording after it is put in.

Plot

As a boy, Henry Hill idolized the Lucchese crime family gangsters in his blue-collar, Italian neighborhood in East New York, Brooklyn, and in 1955 quit school to work for them. The local mob capo, Paul Cicero, and his close associate Jimmy Conway help start Henry's criminal career.

As adults, Henry and his associate Tommy DeVito conspire with Conway to steal some of the billions of dollars of cargo passing through Idlewild Airport. They assist in a key heist, stealing over half a million dollars from the Air France cargo terminal. The robbery helps Henry gain more of Cicero's trust. However, because Henry is half-Irish, he can never become a "made man," a full member of the crime family. Nor can Jimmy Conway, who is also Irish.

Conway hijacks trucks and Tommy has an explosive temper and continually exhibits violence. He once humiliates an young man "Spider", (asking him to dance à la The Oklahoma Kid then shooting him in the foot. When Spider later stands up to him, Tommy kills him.

Henry also falls in love with Karen Freidman, a no-nonsense young Jewish woman. They go to the Copacabana club several times a week (the film depicts this in a famous steadicam shot). Karen is uneasy with her boyfriend's career, but also "turned on" by it after he pistol whips a man who tried to have his way with her. Henry and Karen marry and have two daughters.

On June 11, 1970, Tommy (aided by Jimmy Conway) brutally murders Billy Batts by beating, stabbing and shooting him after he mocks Tommy's previous job as a shoeshine boy. Because Batts was a made man in the Gambino crime family, this is a major offense punishable by death. Therefore, Henry, Jimmy and Tommy bury Batts' corpse in an abandoned field. Six months later, the land is to be developed, and they are exhume, move, and rebury the body.

Henry's marriage deteriorates when Karen finds he has a mistress, Janice Rossi. Karen confronts Henry with a gun. Henry professes his love for her, which weakens Karen, allowing Henry to disarm her.

After dangling a debtor over a lion cage at the zoo, Henry and Jimmy are sentenced to ten years in prison (though, with Cicero's help, they serve only four). In prison, Henry deals drugs to support his family, and has a lucrative drug connection in Pittsburgh upon release. Cicero warns Henry against drug dealing, since mob bosses can get hefty prison sentences if their men are running drugs behind their back.

Henry ignores Cicero and involves Tommy, Jimmy, his wife, and new mistress in an elaborate smuggling operation. About the same time, December 1978, Jimmy Conway and friends plan and carry out a record $6,000,000 heist from the Lufthansa cargo terminal at JFK Airport. Afterwards, Jimmy grows paranoid when other associates flaunt their gains, which could draw police attention. He begins having them killed off. Even worse, after Paulie allows members of the Gambino Crime Family to welcome Tommy DeVito into the Lucchese family as a "made man," they shoot him in the back of the head, killing him. Jimmy is crushed by Tommy's death.

On Sunday, May 11th, 1980, the different paths of Henry's complicated Mafia career collide. He must coordinate a major cocaine shipment; cook a meal for his family; pick up his brother at the hospital, deliver guns to Jimmy, placate his mistress, who processes the cocaine he sells; cope with his clueless babysitter/drug courier, avoid federal authorities who, unknown to him, have him under surveillance for several months and satisfy his sleazy customers all the while a nervous wreck from lack of sleep and heavy drug use. Henry and his courier are arrested by police as he backs out of his driveway. Karen bails her husband out of jail, after destroying all of the cocaine that was hidden in the house. Henry and his family are left penniless.

After Henry's drug arrest, Cicero and the mob abandon him. Convinced that he and his family are marked for death (especially after a meeting with Conway), Henry becomes an F.B.I. informant. He and his family enter the federal Witness Protection Program. He testifies against Paulie and Jimmy. He is now an "average nobody". The movie ends with a quick shot of Tommy firing a pistol directly into the camera to the sound of Sid Vicious' raucous rendition of My Way. Gwynand (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A much shorter plot summary is required

  • Outsider view This plot summary fails WP:NOT#PLOT. If allmovie can produce a plot summary using less than 250 words, I don't see why this has to be longer. It seems to me that the plot summary tries to mix fact with fiction, which is out of order.Unless you can come up with reliable secondary sources that demonstrate that sections of the plot are notable, then that is a valid reason to have a longer summary, that is fine by me. But once you get beyond 150 words, then this is too long.

Here is my draft: lets see if you can shorten it more:

The film is set in Brooklyn, NY, in 1955 when Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) joins the Lucchese crime family and works with Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino), Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro), and Tommy DeVito , played by Joe Pesci who won an Academy Award for his performance as a murderous psychotic.
The film charts Henry's rise within the mob through cleverly executed robberies at JFK airport, and the mob code which governs the relationship between members of the crime family, as well as the brutal murder of the family member Billy Batts (Frank Vincent). After a life of crime, and falling out of favor with the family, Henry turns informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and gives evidence against his former associates Conway and Cicero in court. At the end, he laments that he now has to live the rest of his life using an anonymous identity by the Federal Witness Protection Program.

It seems to me that the plot summary is being used as a coatrack for discussions about the characters ethnic origins and similarities to their real world counterparts without the citing reliable sources to justify this approach. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines for film related articles state: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot) I'm not sure where you got the 150 words or 250 words guidelines from, but it might be something you would like to discuss at the talk page for the film plot guidelines. Also, even this is a "guideline", not a "requirement" or "policy", so the title of this discussion is misleading. Rray (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree as the only way to increase the word count is to include lots of in universe content that fails WP:WAF; to avoid this, keeping this brief is the key. The plot summary should not be a regurgitation of the story as if the events are real; it should be written as if by a film reviewer who is describing the film from a detached point of view, recognising plot elements (characters, their motivation and events) as just that: elements that are present in films everywhere. For instance the sentence "The events in the film include his part in the 1967 Air France Robbery at JFK airport" is conjecture unsupported by reliable sources, and should be replaced with somethink like "the film features a cleverly executed airport robbery". --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but you should not prescribe that a plot summary "must" be some arbitrary number of words that you came up with when guidelines are already in place. If you disagree with the guidelines for plot summaries in film articles, I'd encourage you to bring it up on the talkk page for the film plot guidelines. Rray (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you make a good point about the attempts to relate real life events to the fictional events of the film. That fact tag in the plot summary is a rare instance, I think, where such a tag is appropriate in a description of fictional events. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I removed the unsubstantiated information. Rray (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary again

The plot summary got fat again. 76.230.47.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has augmented it

Henry Hill admits ,"As far as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster," idolizing the Lucchese crime family gangsters in 1955 in his blue-collar, predominantly Italian neighborhood in East New York, Brooklyn as being someone in a place full of nobodies. He begins working for them at a cab stand because his Irish father says that its good work and not end up like a bum. Excited and thrilled thinking that he is a part of something due to his half-Italian herritage from his mother, Henry quits school and joins in working for them.
Henry is taken under the wing of the local mob capo, Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino) (based on the actual Lucchese mobster Paul Vario) and Cicero's close associate Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) (based on Jimmy Burke) an Irish member of Cicero's crew who helps to cultivate Henry's criminal career along with Tommy Devito (Joe Pesci in is his Academy Award winning performance based on Thomas DeSimone). They perform their jobs well while having the time of their lives in fancy restaurants. Henry later meets Karen, a Jewish girl from the Five Towns neighborhood in Manhattan. They begin dating and soon get married.
Henry's friends become daring and dangerous. Conway loves hijacking trucks, and Tommy has an explosive temper and a psychotic need to prove himself through violence. At one point while Henry is cheating on Karen with his mistress Janice Rossi (played by the late Gina Mastrogiacomo), he humiliates a young waitor named "Spider" (played by a then unknown Michael Imperioli) by shooting him in the foot and later shooting him to death with his pistol for standing up to him. Karen finds out about Rosi and holds a gun aimed at his face while on top of him. Angrily saying in a weepy voice, she asks Henry if he loves his mistress. Henry repeatedly says that Karen is the only one he loves before forcibly restraining her and threatening her with the gun that he has other things to worry about like being murdered on the streets.
Henry's rise within the mob through cleverly executed robberies such the Air France Robbery of 1967. Even though he performs his job well, the mob code which prevents him and Jimmy from becoming "made men," full members of the crime family because of their Irish heritage. On June 11, 1970, Tommy and Jimmy brutally murder a "made man" of the Gambino Crime Family named Billy Batts (Frank Vincent). But later they have to dig up and move the badly decomposed body due to future land development. An offense that could get Henry and the other two killed, they bury Batts in a field upstate. On a later assignment, his friends and him beat an in debt Florida gambler into returning money he has borrowed and later take him to a zoo where they threaten him with a liom. Even though the gambler agrees to get the money, his sister who is a typist for the FBI not only gives up Henry but his friends and even her own brother. Henry and his friends spend their time in prison but in a more lavish sense of a way and not in prison cells. After his release from prison, Henry and his friends soon commit the $6,000,000 Lufthansa heist at JFK for which he calls, "The heist of a life time,". But later on tragic events take place. Jimmy issues the order to kill anyone involved in the Lufthansa heist due to their rapant buyings for their relatives or themseves with their share of the stolen money and Tommy is deceived into thinking that he's being made and later executed by Gambino crime family members who are associates to the Lucchese crime family for an exchange for Billy Batts' murder.
On May 11, 1980, Henry is dealing drugs as he has a couple of years back and has to make a big shipment of cocaine to a dealer in Atlanta. But all doesn't go well as he has planned so expertly and well for Henry is captured by narcotics agents spying on him and his movements indicating on where he will ship out the drug products due to their babysitter forgetting her traveling hat.
Henry returns home and find out that his wife Karen has flushed all of the 60,000 dollars worth of drugs down the toilet to avoid the drug agents from finding it. Henry and his family are left penniless and broke. He soon becomes an informant for the FBI in fear of his family and him being killed for the people he once used to work for. He turns Jimmy and Paul Cicero in. He later laments on that how he still loves the life in the Mafia and that he now has to live the rest of his life "like a schnook", after being given an anonymous identity by the Federal Witness Protection Program and dissapering into it beginning a normal life.

I've temporarily reverted because this is a pretty large growth in the length of the plot summary and, before accepting this, I'd like to see what other editors feel about it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My impression

Might want to re-do it a little, especially the 3rd and 4th paragraph, make it a bit more dry and encyclopedic. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with the article. Ziggy Sawdust 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article

Somebody has passed this as a "good article", but I note that the plot summary is fat again and full of unnecessary detail.

I have reverted the pass because of that. We can't say "this is a good article" when we don't have consensus on basic stuff like the plot summary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Limetolime should not have unilaterally decided to pass as a good article without more discussion. Disagree (generally) that plot summary is too long. Summary might need a bit of tightening, but otherwise is OK compared to other films of similar stature. Ward3001 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I take both of your comments in good part. If we agree that discussion is good, then that's the point. I don't fault Limetolime for passing the article as he did--declaring Good Article status is intended to be a lightweight process and normally it only takes one person to review. Just that in this case I happen to dissent from his assessment and therefore reverted it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify my position I've made this comment on Limetolime's talk page. The essence is: if it's only me objecting, then obviously there is consensus that the article is good and I withdraw my objection. I only ask that we wait a couple of days. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have to raise the question of sourcing for the connections made between the fictional characters and their real-life counterparts in the Plot and Cast sections ("based on..."). I'm sure there's material out there that will support these statements, but it needs to be cited in both sections (Cast is not enough, since Plot must stand on its own). This would also prevent it from being GA at this point: it appears to be a glaring hole in the article unless I'm missing something.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Air France Heist?

If this article is about the movie and not the actual events, the reference to the Air France robbery should be changed to Lufthansa. The airline robbed in the movie was Lufthansa not Air France.--Kjrjr (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy Kjrjr is so wrong!!!! Completely Incorrect!!!! This guy needs to go watch the movie again. Henry Hill and his gang robbed Air France around 1967!!!!!! There's the scene in the nightclub where you see Henry and Karen watching the comedian Henny Youngman. The scene cuts to the Airport. You still hear Henny Youngman telling his jokes, but you see Henry and Tommy walking into the Air France warehouse. Then you see a scene in Paul Cicero's social club, where Paul is looking at the suitcase of money. They give paul his cut, and Paul puts his arm around Henry, and says to Henry: "thats a lot of money for a kid like you. anybody asks where you got it, you tell them you got it in Vegas playing craps." Jimmy says "Its gonna be a good summer!" THAT was the Air France Robbery. In the movie, you hear Henry's narration, and he says "Air France made me." THEN fast foward to later in the movie; The Lufthansa robbery is a Second airport robbery, but Henry wasn't part of the crew that did it. Henry hears about it on the radio, while he's showering. There was the Air France Robbery. Then there was the Lufthansa robbery. BOTH!!!! 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone Please Edit the "Plot" Section

The plot summary that is in the article now gives me a headache to read. It just pulls arbitrary scenes from the overall film, without any kind of rhyme or reason. At the very least, it needs some serious editing for clarity, tone, and cohesion. Marine0352 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Italic title

For some odd reason, the page title was modified to italics with the {{italictitle}} template, with this edit. This is not normal practice; FA movie articles do not italicise the page title, so I've removed it.  Chzz  ►  00:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Speeches

Alfred Hitchcock did not said only "Thanks" in his Oscar speech, actually he spoke "Thank you" and one more phrase that I can´t figure out,m as you can see on YouTube. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section in this article is entirely too long. Most of the characters listed are very minor, and played by little known actors, in many cases, redlinks. It should be trimmed down to the 6-10 who are of most importance. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The section is different from most "Cast" sections because it has a "Based on" column. The top half of the table appears worth keeping, although we do not necessarily have to expunge the bottom half. Blue-linked actors and blue-linked "Based on" people in the bottom half could be rewritten into prose, like Tony Lip's character based on Francesco Manzo. Erik (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that might work, with the caveat that Henry Hill was a known for exaggeration and prevarication, and any "based-on" prose should make clear that the characters in the film are fictionalizations of real people and that the stories should not be taken at face value. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated content in the article

Much of the text in the "Screenplay" section is word-for-word duplication of text earlier in the article. This should probably be removed from one section or the other. Rmd1023 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Who killed Tommy?

This has been changed a number of times in the past day, including by me. I really do not think it is necessary to be specific about who does it, just as long as we are clear that he is killed because he killed Billy Batts. If a ref. can be found that says it is definitely Tuddy, fine, but I cannot find one. And, as I say, I think it is a minor detail. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This Topic though could use some more info. How do the bosses find out Tommy did it? Maybe Henry finally did tell Paul Vario that Tommy killed Batts, although in the movie Henry says he knows nothing. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Another question is, when Tommy thinks hes going to his ceremony to get made, his mother tells him good luck. Where did the old woman think her son was going? He made her believe that he had a legitimate night job, so what did she think he was all dressed up for? Or did he tell her he was going to get made? Did she know he was with the mob? 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Even “inspired by true events” is too generous

It needs to be made clear that the movie is at best "fiction set against a background or actual characters and events". The inaccuracies and misrepresentations in terms of timelines, characters, locations, and actions and statements attributed to characters are to numerous to list. Predictably, in his book “wiseguys” Hill painted himself as a “victim” and placed himself in the most favorable light possible, and was free and loose with the truth in the process. A perfect example is that the very idea that Hill had maintained a “father-Son” like relationship Paul Vario (Paul Cicero in the film) is ridiculous as to be laughable, and the idea that Jimmy Burke (Conway in the film) could have without permission, killed off numerous Lucchese family associates without permission is equally absurd. The killing in question were in fact, ordered by Tony Carrillo and were for the most part, unrelated to the robbery. many of the events depicted in the film did actually happen, but trying to make any kind of Sequential or logistical sense of the events based on the film is an exercise in futility. Cosand (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing Mr. "Cosand" ia wrong about: he says "wiseguys" was Henry's book. It was not Henry's book. Nicholas Pileggi was the only author of the book. He interviewed Henry for the book, and quotes Henry in the book, but it is not "Henry's book." The only thing laughable is Mr. Cosand's critique. Fact is in the mob, you can't touch a made man, (intitiated into the mob.) Jimmy killed many guys who were not made men. As for him killing many guys not associated with robbery, that might be true, but its completely irrelevant. Goodfellas is a story about Henry. Its not supposed to be documdrama about Jimmy. The movie was not meant to be inclusive of anything and everything Jimmy did! Henry helped plan Lufthansa. The accomplices in the Lufthansa robbery went missing or dead. Thats a fact!!! To start saying Jimmy did many killings of guys not associated with the robbery, hey no friggin kidding. Its irrelevant!!!!!! And maybe enry did look up to Paul as a father. Henry was around 13 to 15 years old when he hooked up with Paul's crew!!!!!! 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also..."Frankie Carbone" seems to be a composite character melding Angelo Sepe and Tony Malado. While as the article points out, the character is clearly largely based on Sepe, the parallels to Malado and also undeniable. Unless it is a coincedence, a possible addition to the chart is in order in my opinion. Cosand (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are suggesting here is original research: editors conducting their own analysis of the historic events, Hill's book, and the film, and creating a synthesis by which to say the film is inaccurate. This is not appropriate. All the article can say is what reliable sources say. Furthermore, I do not believe Scorsese ever claimed he was making an historical film. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If you noticed,I didn't edit the main page. I beleive my entering my personal experince HERE on the discussion page is completly appropriate, and much of what I said CAN be found in reliable sources. had I the inclinatioon to edit the main page, I would have listed them.
You are correct that Scorsese never claimed he was making a "historical film" , but clearly, he implied accuracy far beyoned what the film delivered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Where did he imply that? Clearly, he was making a film, not a documentary ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are miles of middle ground between a "film" and a "documentary". This film was based on a book that was touted to be biographical, and the author co-wrote the screen play. In as much as even some of the content of the book was questionable, the film didn't even follow those dubious lines. It was an entertaining movie, but again, it should be made clear that it is not a factual account of the events it portrays. This is the case with many of Scorsese's films (gangs of NY and Casino are two other examples) He takes a fictioal approach to true events (when in many cases the true story would have been more interesting)all of which is fine, as long as it is made clear that this is the case. Most of the time, it's not. Again, I abserved the "original research" prohibition (which I totally disagree with) by not editing the main page, but my hope is that by putting my comments in the discussion page, others might just be able to produce a "reliable source'to back up my claims. I frankly, lack the time to do so Cosand (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Legacy - source for Chase quote

What is the source for the David Chase quote in the Legacy section? All it says is "he also told Peter Bogdanovich", followed by the quote. I find the quote repeated on the internet, but without attribution, especially on non-US sites. It's full of mistakes as though it's a transcript done by someone with poor spelling skills. I want to correct it, unless the source material is misspelled as well, like an email. It's looking sort of like a meme.Diggnity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

lead too long?

Does anyone else think that the lead section is too long? The third paragraph in particular seems stuffed with awards, which are all listed in the body text (chart). El duderino (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast

I decided to be bold and remove the chart in the cast section. The characters in the film are fictionalizations of the people in Hill's book, which is widely regarded to have been an exercise in exaggeration. In essence, what we have are fictionalizations of fictionalizations. As such, the "based on" claim is spurious and misleading. The movie is a work of fiction suggested by actual events, with little resemblance to the real people. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on Luchesse crime family in film synopsis?

While this is factual, as it was indeed the Luchesse faction of the Italian mob which the real life Henry Hill was associated with, this crime family's namesake is not mentioned once in the film. How relevant is the authentic namesake of this organized crime group when it is never mentioned in this, for all intents and purposes, fictional film *based* on a true story? This would seem to distract an otherwise lay reader who just wants a description of the film. Perhaps the emphasis on the actual crime family in which the story's based upon would be of better use in a section which focuses on references and origins of the film, as opposed to the actual plot overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.98.232 (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for it to be mentioned. As you say, it's never mentioned in the film, so it has no place in the plot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated sentence. Choose one

From the second paragraph: According to Pesci, improvisation and ad-libbing came out of rehearsals where Scorsese gave the actors freedom to do whatever they wanted. The director made transcripts of these sessions, took the lines he liked best, and put them into a revised script the cast worked from during principal photography.

From the 18th paragraph in the Principle Photography section: According to Pesci, improvisation and ad-libbing came out of rehearsals where Scorsese let the actors do whatever they wanted. He made transcripts of these sessions, took the lines that the actors came up with that he liked best, and put them into a revised script that the cast worked from during principal photography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.201.152.7 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR

Where the scene was shot near the end of the film needs verifiable reliable sourcing. Remember that Wikis including Wikipedia cannot be used as that source per WP:USERG. It should also be noted that this is an encyclopedic article not a list of where every scene was filmed so, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE this info may not be important to this article. That will be decided by WP:CONSENSUS should a source ever be found. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rating

I may me be mistaken but this article needs a MPAA rating listing doesn't it? "Goodfellas is often considered one of the greatest films of all time, both in the crime genre and in general" - The link to this statement does not mention Goodfellas. Another link or delete the statement: it is not really considered one of the greatest films of all time by most of the major lists.

Please see WP:FILMRATING MarnetteD|Talk 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Luchesse Family is never mentioned in the film

Why does someone insist on repeating that the character Henry Hill, not the person, but the character in the film, was an associate of the Lucchese family? Not once is this mentioned in the film. It belongs in a section about the origins of the film, not in the plot summary itself. Whoever's doing this obviously wants to impress everyone with what they learned watching Bill Curtis documentaries on A&E. There's a wikipedia page about the Lucchese family, and a section on the Goodfellas page about the film's origins, where the real Henry Hill's mob affiliations can be expanded at length. It does not belong in the plot summary. This is a fictional film based on a true story. The actual crime family is never mentioned. The highest ranking mobster in this story is Paulie and there is no mention of what crime family he belongs to in the film. The plot summary on the Goodfellas wikipedia page should not be a platform for people to prove how much they know about true crime. It's a summary of a fictional film that is based on a true story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.173.62.240 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Will law enforcement and true crime buffs quit ruining wikipedia?

We get it. You know the real life mob family that Goodfellas is based on. It doesn't fit in the plot summary, however, since it's never mentioned in the film. Put it in a section outside of the plot summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C702:94B0:94CF:5876:BE09:D050 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Lufthansa Heist book

Perhaps mention should be made of Henry Hills's other memoir with Daniel Simone, The Lufthansa Heist. Klayman55 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Klayman55

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goodfellas. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Links to real life gangsters in Plot section

In the first sentence of the Plot section, Jimmy "the gent" Conway links to the article for James Burke, the real life man whom the character is based on... however, Paul Cicero and Tommy DeVito don't link to their corresponding real life people, Paul Vario and Tommy DeSimone. I was considering adding those links. Appropriate or no? Bzzzing (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Category:Films about race and ethnicity be added?

My edit of adding Category:Films about race and ethnicity to Goodfellas was reverted as it is apparently an inaccurate category. However, I believe it is in fact an accurate category as the film has some fairly prominent ethnic and religious themes; for example Henry and Jimmy can never made made men because or their Irish heritage, and Henry must pretend to be Jewish in order to marry Karen. There are many more ethnic tropes present throughout the film. -- Shaolin Punk (talk) 7:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

But it's not specifically about that. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Vaselineeeeeeee. The film is not about race and ethnicity, they are only mentioned in passing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The substantiation of any given Category must be both mentioned and cited (from reliable independent sources) in the body text of the article itself. In addition, the Category must be a defining characteristic of the article's subject. Neither of those two threshold criteria is met here. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goodfellas. 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:

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.

Question? A help request is open: link goes to a generic home page. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Christopher Serrone - actor of young Henry Hill

I just looked this article up to find out who played the young Henry Hill, but couldn't find anything here. I had to use Google to find out it was Christopher Serrone. Why is he not mentioned anywhere? Billy7 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember how big the role was, but one thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is mostly supposed to be an encyclopedic overview. We link to other sites that have more detailed information, such as the American Film Institute and the IMDb. But you could add it to the article if you think it's important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Halfwits reverting

I made some simple improvements to a couple of sentences. Two editors have decided to undo my work without being able to muster up the brainpower to think of a reason why. One of them got as far as putting "ip edits" in an edit summary. The other just left me a message of breathtaking stupidity, accusing me of vandalism. If either of them believes they have a reason to undo my improvements, they should say what it is. And in future they should behave like collaborative editors and not like obnoxious cretins. 2.28.152.23 (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And one of the halfwits deleted this post in contravention of the talk page guidelines, and filed a deliberately false accusation of vandalism. I see they are also insulting me on their talk page, which they have protected so I can't respond there. They clearly have plenty of time for trolling, but no time to come up with even a vague justification for their disruptive reverting. 2.28.152.23 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So now three accounts have made the same disruptive revert. Not one of the accounts has bothered to think of a reason why. That really is quite disgusting behaviour. 2.28.152.23 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
And now another troll is removing my comments here, and appears to be still not able to think of a reason for doing so. 2.28.152.23 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is briefly fully protected. Please discuss the content dispute here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a pity that someone decided it would be more fun to engage in absurd trolling by reverting for no reason and making false allegations against me than to actually improve articles. Protecting the article would not have been necessary in a million years if people were here to build an encyclopaedia. 2.28.152.23 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is your insulting tone, which does not contribute to a helpful atmosphere. You have never once given a reason why your edits were an "improvement." ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess I should have caught on to this earlier, but the IP editor was the banned Best known for IP. I've removed the protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Characters' Real World Counterparts

So I had an edit reverted some time back by @TheOldJacobite: and I can't quite find where the discussion about this is, so I thought I'd bring it up here. The inspired characters are:

Apparently having these linked (see this revision) is problematic for some reason, I'd just like to know why. Also, I'd like to propose an alternative format, imitating what is done on the Inherit the Wind (1960 film) article. A mockup might look like:

Thoughts? -- sarysa (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I like that. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a fiction film not a documentary. The links imply something that is inaccurate. That is why they have been removed for years now. MarnetteD|Talk 21:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a consensus has ever been agreed upon here. The characters are undoubtedly inspired by the real figures, so I don't see why laying it out like Inherit the Wind (1960 film) is a bad idea, or "inaccurate". Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing for consensus that has existed up to now. This conversation is an attempt to reacvh a new one. As to what other articles do see WP:OTHERSTUFF. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Why I loath OTHERSTUFF: What if someone were to, on the Inherit the Wind film talk page, compare it to the Goodfellas article in that they don't use the real world figure links, and that for this reason, Inherit the Wind should also consider not linking. Then someone says, hey man, OTHERSTUFF, we don't care what other pages do so we're keeping the links. That specific "guideline" is so very lazy. Instead, come up with something of substance to why we shouldn't use the links. Just because the events in the movie are obviously dramatized, we can't ignore who they were undoubtedly based upon, and for that, I think they deserve mention. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Whether you loath it or not it is policy. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
One possibility is to put these items in prose, with references, in the body of the article. That way it avoids the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems of having the items in the cast list. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I make it a point not to disagree with Marnette when he's right, and he's right about everything he said above. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at OTHERSTUFF, that seems more focused on avoiding adding z because x exists, ignoring the fact that x is far more notable than z. What I was doing in my argument was citing precedent for a proposed format, which is perfectly reasonable since it's an argument that seeks to foster consistency across Wikipedia. -- sarysa (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
We already have it in prose in screenplay. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That is what I get for clicking on casting in the TOC. Thanks for the info. That is sufficient mention then and there is no need to repeat in the cast list. MarnetteD|Talk 23:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
As per my other reply, I do find it to be both inconsistent and an unnecessary burial of information more easily processed by the reader in bullet point form. That said, I seem to be outnumbered...oh well. -- sarysa (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with sarysa. Well, it is "even" right now technically. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goodfellas/Archive_1&oldid=1105633666"