ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Diablo Cody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Diablo Cody

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article was the selected biography of the Minnesota Portal in March 2008.

Contents

[edit] Link to "Candy Girl"

If someone wants to add links to her book on amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Candy-Girl-Year-Unlikely-Stripper/dp/1592401821
and on Barnes & Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Candy-Girl/Diablo-Cody/e/9780641891557/?itm=1

I read the book before Juno, not that it matters, just to mention that I'm not a fanboy. It's ok; easy to read, entertaining, definately adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.96.185 (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subject-Created Entry, Much?

This just reeks of the self-adulation that typifies self-created (or acquaintance-created) Wikipedia entries, both of which are against Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, for a one-time screenwriter, this entry is WAY too long. Far too many plaudits and details for someone with relatively few achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.255.146 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for who created the initial entry, whether it was Cody or one of her acquaintances or not. However, the combination of her unusual (and well-documented) origins and the acclaim and actual plaudits (Golden Globe nod, several critics awards, etc.) her first screenplay have garnered justify the existence and the breath of her entry. Facts are facts. --3finger (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 3finger. she's a very successful writer- three scripts taken up, one produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.127.175 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Cody's Oscar nomination should officially close this subject. I don't know the criteria that go into that decision, but when you're up for the biggest award in the industry, 'nuff said.--3finger (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Alllitup-3.jpg

Image:Alllitup-3.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 insure 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) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the photo of her at the Academy Awards copyrighted? I am going to attempt to remove it. --anon. 70.23.158.96 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scripts?

She's sold scripts to studios, and she wrote a pilot for a sitcom. Why mention these things? Scripts are sold all the time, and pilots are churned out with alarming regularity. Nine times out of ten, these scripts and pilots never go anywhere. It's worthless to put in the article. There's no way to know those projects will ever succeed, and listing them is frankly just silly, and shameless promotion to make this flavor-of-the-month blogger/fledgling screenwriter seem like a force to be reckoned with. Howa0082 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is "silly, shameless promotion". She has only produced one screenplay that was made into a film and it is not uncommon to note future works. These projects are cited and are therefore verifiable; it is not like they are rumors. Besides, this "flavor-of-the-month blogger/fledgling screenwriter" has been nominated for and might possibly win an Academy Award. I agree with their being mentioned as notable. María (habla conmigo) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not notable. Screenwriters sell scripts everyday. Very few ever get made. I think if those scripts she sold go into production, then it's appropriate to mention them. But just to say she sold some scripts to some studios is a worthless, misleading statement. Here's an improvement; wikify to Jennifer's Body, mentioning that it's in production starting this month. Retitle that section, perhaps, from "screenwriting" to something more appropriate and less misleading. The other two scripts she either wrote or rewrote are not in pre-production. They're not even listed on IMDB. There's no references for Burlesque or Girly Style, so all intents and purposes, they do not exist. Howa0082 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a couple additional sources to the article, thanks. The problem with beginning articles based on films that have not begun production is that it's seen as violating WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing wrong with mentioning written scripts as they pertain to the author, however, especially since Cody's work is receiving so much press notice since the success of Juno. If the films are not made, then the article can be updated to include this fact, or omit any mention of them at all. That's the thing about an online encyclopedia; it's a fluid thing. I stick to my opinion that these are noteworthy, however; the press certainly seems to think so. María (habla conmigo) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Id like to know how she all of a sudden unsolicited was able to sell a script or have anyone in hollywood read her screenplay for that matter. If you dont have an agent that has any pull people in hollywood are inundated with scripts all the time they just throw out or dont get around to reading and thrown out. Why her? How did she get heard/read?

This is explained in the article; her manager, Novick, suggested after she wrote her memoir that she try a screenplay. I'm guessing that her manager was the one who was able to bring the script to Hollywood, which is how it usually works. María (habla conmigo) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Shoes

Thoughts on adding something about the Oscar shoes? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current marital status

I found three references (and counting) on her MySpace blog to her divorce from Jonny Hunt. (I submitted an edit to this talk page with links but it was wiped out by the spam filter... GRRRRR!) I say it's time to indicate that her real name is just Brook Busey.
For what it's worth, here is a Daily Mail article that mentions her divorce. --anon. 70.23.164.117 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A good thing to look into, though we should remember that not all women change their names once they're divorced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.142.216 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent articles about her do give her real name as just Brook Busey, however. I included the URL of one in my Edit summary when I changed the birth name listed for her in the infobox. --anon. 70.23.176.56 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of birth name, is it reasonable to assume, in the absence of information to the contrary, that her birth name is the same as her pre- and post-marriage real name? This is a question applicable to all biographical articles. --anon. 70.23.176.56 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Choice of pen name

In an entry on her MySpace blog dated January 16, 2008, she quotes her ex-husband explaining that Diablo was inspired by the song "El Diablo" by Arcadia. --anon. 70.23.164.117 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twitter?

Is it a good idea to link diablocody on Twitter? --TIB (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -