Talk:The Incredible Shrinking Woman

	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 American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

That was possibly the worst written plot summary I've ever seen. Unfortunately, as I haven't seen the film, all I can do right now is sit and snipe. - Delaney

I saw the movie when it first came out, so I don't remember a lot of the details. Cleaned up the grammar and spelling as best I could. = flaminghomeryto —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Incredible shrinking woman.jpg[edit]

Image:Incredible shrinking woman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat to be trimmed[edit]

There's quite a bit of wild conjecture in the Summary section that could use a clean-up.

Distribution?[edit]

This film apparently isn't available on DVD. Anyone have any idea why? Maybe it could be explained in the article. Samuel Grant (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The currently stated cause is wrong[edit]

I have seen this film quite a few time I know that claim in article that the exposure to the "strange mixture of household chemicals" is false. Anybody who has actually seen this film can tell you that the experimental perfume, under the tentative title Sex Pot, was the sole cause of Pat Cramer's uncontrollable miniaturization. As following the accidental perfume dowsing on herself and her sweater by her husband, followed by their consummation, the camera pans back to the bathroom sink where it shows the sweater glowing, and then the following morning Pat can't find it where she left it. Suggesting that the sweater shrank away to nothing overnight. Plus despite the Doctor's diagnosis of the household cleaners as the cause, he states in the secret meeting that there was something in her blood that was causing to become smaller. Meaning that none of the doctors and researchers really knew what was causing her reduction. Plus you have Ned Betty's character who was Pat's husband's boss in on the "Shrink the World" plan. Sarujo (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this issue is obviously more important to you than to me, so I bow out. Though I wasn't the editor who made the Ned Betty error. Bkatcher (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Wagner[edit]

This sentence seems a little misleading, but I'm not sure how to fix it:

The film's writer, Jane Wagner, is Tomlin's wife and frequent collaborator.

As written, this implies that they've been married since at least 1981, which of course isn't true. But the obvious change to something like "future wife" or "now-wife" would be even more misleading, because it would imply they weren't together as a couple until some time after 1981.

Assuming other people see the same problem with the sentence, does anyone have any ideas on how to improve it? --157.131.202.156 (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]