Talk:She's the Man

	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.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Women's sport: WOSO Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

Plot plaigarism

This article's information is taken verbadum from the movie's official site. I mean they just took the plot synopsis and copied and pasted. This seems more like a piece of advertising than an encyclopedia article.

Do you really think this movie even deserves an ancyclopedia article? It looks awful and will probably be on DVD in two months.

Every theatrically-released deserves an article; Wikipedia is not paper so there's no risk of running out of space. The movie was pretty sub-par, but considerably worse works of media have articles such as Waterworld, American Idol, Gigli, and Donnie Darko (yeah, I went there). And yes it probably will be on DVD within a few months and I will buy it just for the Amanda Bynes swimsuit scene in the first five minues unless I can find a place to download that scene first. 4.89.240.192 13:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the majority of text of this article, for the reason listed above, it was taken directly from the movie's official site. --Xyzzyplugh 05:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't our choice what movies have a wiki article, as said above, this is an encyclopedia it isn't for people's points of view, just to display information. Talk about the movie should be moved to forums (whether they be forums supporting the movie or against it)--JG ROX 58.173.8.87 08:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should someone rewrite the plot, because I don't think that it is a sufficient summary of the movie. It pays to closer attention to certain details and no attention to some major (ish) plot-points. I can't rewrite it but i think it would be a good suggestion if someone did--JG ROX 58.173.8.87 11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just One of the Guys

Perhaps some mention of Just One of the Guys, a movie it resembles significantly, as both are Twelth Night set in a modern school. - Matthew238 07:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, however there's already been an edit war about that subject, on this page. See here. AndyJones 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some are born great...

"The line "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them," which was spoken by the character of Duke Orsino in the film, is a direct quote taken from Act II Scene V of Twelfth Night."

Wrong character. It was Malvolio, if whoever wrote this was familiar with the play at all. I'll fix it.

Apology Monster 08:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've missed the point, although unfortunately I can't check this, having not seen the film. There is a "Duke Orsino" in the film, and I think the editor must have meant that that character says those lines in the film. I agree that in the play Malvolio says these lines, in the box-tree scene and again to Olivia. I'll change that back, but I'd be grateful if someone would look this over. AndyJones 12:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, my mistake. Sorry. Apology Monster 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little clarification. Malvolio speaks the lines, but he didnt come up with them himself; they are actaully Maria's words.

Tobias

Holy ****... I'm watching this movie, and I'm at the part where she/he meets the headmaster, and who is he, but David Cross(Tobias Fünke)! Tinlv7 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (use my talk page)[reply]

Continuity error

I deleted the error which incorrectly stated that Viola and Sebastian's mother called Viola's cell phone (following the tarantula scene) to leave a message for Sebastian. The phone wasn't the cell phone, but the dorm room's landline, which is why the message was heard on the dorm's answering machine. --NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can i add a continuity error which is:

when Viola and Duke step out onto the stage at the debutant ball, they kiss. when it shows the close up duke's hand is on viola's cheek, when it showed the full shot only moments before his hand was by is side--JG ROX 58.173.8.87 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the movie (first time), and I just spotted another myself. When Viola reveals herself to everyone at the soccer match by taking off her wig, her hair was totally messed up. In the next scene, her hair was still messed up. But in the very next scene, her hair is all flat and tidy all the sudden.Aznality 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul

In the plot summary, it says that Paul got with Duke's friend Andrew at the end. Is this true?

Odd that you didn't need to sign your comment... well, Andrew was just sitting there closely with some dude, smiling and stuff. The Tangmeister (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content

I don't think it's necessary to list all these errors and trivia when they can be found on IMDB. It looks like someone just copy/pasted them. Darry2385 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Kirk

I'm totally technologically illiterate but I just noticed that when you click on James Kirk in the cast list, it redirects to James Kirk from Star Trek instead of the Canadian actor. Maybe someone could fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfin (talk • contribs) 01:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB claims

Fireflyfanboy: We cannot accept IMDB as a reliable source for the claim you made here. The guideline WP:USERG covers this in detail. I recommend you find a better source if you'd like this claim to exist in the article. I will remove it for now, but if you'd like to discuss in more detail or have any concerns, I'll be watching this page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? According to the blessed rules, this is disputed, but not inappropriate. I think it's pretty rich that a user keeps on undoing my edits til I find a source, I find a source and I'm told it's not good enough... despite being not trivia or something unverified, but an actual movie connection. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to find a reliable source, and IMDB does not qualify. Any random person can add content on IMDB, which is an issue that makes that source unreliable. Take your time and find a reliable alternative. If it's important enough to mention, then some other entity has reliably published this information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully read that source. It says She's the Man and Just One of the Guys were inspired by Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. That source does not adequately support the claim that She's the Man "is a remake of the 1985 film Just One of the Guys". You cannot draw a direct correlation between the two. That's a form of WP:SYNTHESIS and isn't permitted.

Furthermore, I'm not sure you fully understand the three-revert rule. You've crossed that line and then some. To avoid crossing that line, the best course of action is to wait until a consensus is reached on the talk page before editing the article again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the conversation above, I have removed the line again. To reiterate, the Refinery29 source you added does not verify what you have claimed it does. However, I've retained this source as the content about Twelfth Night wasn't itself referenced and this at least satisfies that (presuming Refinery29 is an acceptable RS). Nzd (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User is also continually making the same claims on the article for Just One of the Guys, along with suggesting that two unrelated films are sequels.[1] Until we have reliable sources for this, we cannot claim any connection between any of them. See Talk:Just One of the Guys#Sequels and remakes. --wooden superman 08:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actor and role listed in plot summary, but not in cast.

Jonathan Sadowski plays Paul, Buola’s stykist friend who helps her morph into “Sebastian.”

He is credited in the plot section, but not a part of the cast list. Wangenra (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viola’s stylist friend* (sorry for the awful misspellings). Wangenra (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh I am having a night. Jonathan Sadowski is in the cast list now. Sorry to have bothered anyone. Wangenra (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross dressing and LGBT studies

Cross dressing can be part of LGBT studies but we should not make simplistic assumptions that every story that includes cross dressing is automatically relevant.

It could be relevant but it has not yet been shown that this film is of any particular relevance to LGBT studies or transgender people. It would be a significant improvement if this article included source to show that the film has significance, it may well be an important film for transgender youth who saw it or it could just as easily be yet another insignificant hollywood film in which a character happens to cross dress for comedy. WP:CATVER -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad application of categories reduces their importance and meaning. No reasonable person would deny that films like Boys Don't Cry (1999 film) are important and significant. To put this film in the same category without any verification trivializes more important films that are actually about transgender identity, and not merely films that incidentally happen to include cross dressing.

This could be resolved by simply showing some relevant sources and only then including the categories and project banners. Show your sources. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone could find better sources than the article I found from refinery29[2] which suggests the film was ahead of its time in its depiction of traditional gender norms and homosexuality but also admits that the film does not address these themes outright. You can read things into a story even if they were not intended by the authors, but either way if the categories are appropriate then relevant then the article should be improved and sources added to clearly discuss those themes. Maybe it is just another hollywood teen film and isn't subverting tropes at all, but categories shouldn't be added indiscriminately. -- 109.79.170.230 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand how subcategories work? We do not list parent categories along subcategories. The article is part of Category:Cross-dressing in American films, which is a subcategory of Category:American LGBT-related films. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in She's the Man

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of She's the Man's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "afi":

From Date Night: "Date Night (2010)". AFI Catalog of Feature Films. Retrieved December 28, 2018.
From 21 Jump Street (film): "21 Jump Street". Retrieved 2017-04-01.
From Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 (2015)". AFI Catalog of Feature Films. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
From Shrek 2: "Shrek 2 (2004)". AFI Catalog of Feature Films. Archived from the original on January 4, 2018. Retrieved January 3, 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexcombs5 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Maceysplace, Isabella.mitrow.

— Assignment last updated by JohnWickMis (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She's the Man Was Released in 2006 not 2005

The wiki-page for reverting an edit suggests mentioning what is going on in the talk page, so here goes - a couple of recents edits on this page seem to have simply changed the date from 2006 to 2005. It's not clear why, but the changes are completely uncited - and infact, by editing urls broke the citations which substantially proved the 2006 release date. Unfortunately I couldn't "undo" edits due to conflicting ones, but I think everything is correct now. If someone wants to contest the release date, I'm open to looking at your citation here. Kitography (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official theatrical release date is March 17, 2006, per BOM and The Numbers. As for undoing the disruptive edits, seems to me like you got all the ones that counted. Here's a comparison of revisions which shows that dates and refs are nearly identical today as they were back in Sept 2023 before the disruption started. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]