Talk:Heavy Traffic

GA comment

Images need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Passage

This has been addressed, and I don't see any other major problems with the article. It passes. Daniel Case 05:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Searching "heavy traffic" redirects to Traffic Congestion rather than, you know, the article titled Heavy Traffic. Someone fix this, I don't know how/am lazy. 70.44.178.86 (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by changing redirect to a WP:DAB page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correctional Edit

I just watched this movie and found 2 problems with this article: 1, Micheal states there was no nuclear war and 2 the distant future was 1 million years. So I corrected the article. 71.205.232.199 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heavy Traffic. 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/20051219045953/http://www.ralphbakshi.com/films.php?film=heavytraffic to http://www.ralphbakshi.com/films.php?film=heavytraffic

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) 04:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Offensive or politically correct for the 70's?

The first time that I saw the Wikipedia article for the Nutshack it referred to Cherry pie as a transvestite. That word is now considered offensive. Then I went to the page for the movie heavy traffic and it also used that word. I did not really care. Then about a year later the page for the nutshack was changed to replace the word transvestite with Trans woman but why didn't the heavy traffic article get changed. Can somebody please explain to me why offensive terms like this are allowed on Ralph bakshi rea later pages? Emiship'05 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To your first question: there isn't some bot, admin, or user that goes through every single Wikipedia article to ensure language is not offensive (or even streamlined) throughout - it is entirely up to individual editors on each page. Furthermore, transvestite and trans woman are not synonymous: the first refers to someone who dresses in clothing of the opposite sex, the second refers to someone who was assigned a different gender at birth than they identify with now. It seems clear that the former term is the more accurate one vis-a-vis this article/film. To your second question: Again, it is up to individual editors on each page, and if you feel that the word transvestite should be replaced with something less offensive, the prerogative would be on interested readers/editors such as you to WP:be bold and do it, presuming you do so accurately. As I mentioned, those two words do not mean the same thing - perhaps "cross-dresser" would work, per GLAAD guidelines. I should also mention that Wikipedia is WP:notcensored and we need to go off of what is WP:verifiable - given that the film itself is/was considered offensive to some for a number of reasons, it stands to reason the article might be too, if it is descriptive and accurate enough. This isn't necessarily an argument that we NEED to leave the article with the "offensive" term, but that there is an argument to leave it in if that is how the character is definitively described in the film. I have not seen the film and cannot readily find a transcript available, so I can't say one way or the other. I would not be opposed to using the term "cross-dresser" if there are no objections, but I strongly argue against using "trans woman" given that it would likely be inaccurate. As for Nutshack, I'm guessing it was changed there because the character actually is a trans woman rather than transvestite, but I don't know. Also, no need to go overboard with the wikilinks. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the yellow "inline citations needed" banner at the top of the page from 2021. This might be referring to ref 8 ("Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008).") which is cited multiple times but it is unknown which page numbers correspond to which information. There is also uncited information in the "Home video" and "Music" sections. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Heavy Traffic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a yellow "inline citations needed" banner at the top of the article from 2021. This might be referring to ref 8, "Gibson, Jon M.; McDonnell, Chris (2008)" which is cited multiple times but it is unknown which page numbers correspond to which information. There is also uncited information in the "Home video" and "Music" sections. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Z1720, is this the only major issue? article doesn't seem too long (actually i'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a bit more written on the subject). i'm a little busy over the next week and a half but i may be able to find time to deal with this.--Plifal (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Plifal: These are the only issues I can identify. Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Plifal: Are you still interested in addressing the above concerns? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  Z1720, apologies i got distracted and this this fell off my to-do list. i think this article has too many issues for me to address quickly and i haven't had the time to properly look through the literature. if nobody else shows any interest, it's probably best to delist this and for it to go through the process again.--Plifal (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delist Concerns remain in the article, and work has stalled. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.