Talk:Pink Floyd – The Wall/Archive 3

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

video clip ?

Was a video clip issued about the film ?
My question is because I found a 60-page French-speaking research dissertation (master's thesis) titled The Wall (le mur de Berlin) un clip vidéo. But unfortunately, I have no access to be able to read it ;-( --Bibliorock (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Film Fan (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd—The Wall → Pink Floyd: The Wall – I've never seen it written with an em dash; it looks awkward at best. InverseHypercube 01:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Modified support The current title is incorrect and must be changed. Ideally the title should be the actual title, not something Wikipedia made up. With a colon is better than with an em-dash, but neither seems to be the actual title or the title used by WP:RS. It is called, simply, "The Wall" by Pink Floyd's own materials and I suggest The Wall (Pink Floyd film) may be the most proper name with necessary Wikipedia style disambiguation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Could you cite relevant sources that have it simply as The Wall? InverseHypercube 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
pinkfloyd.com/history/timeline_1982.php. Titles are bolded in their text. This is the primary source. If you browse the rest of the history, you always see other performances as "The Wall - /something/" where something describes the performance (Live at O2, Roger Waters in Berlin, etc). The work in all formats and variations is named "The Wall" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The Wall (film) would also work. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It does. But there are two other films on The Wall (disambiguation) that aren't from Pink Floyd. The "(film)" title would need a dab header, "(Pink Floyd film)" would not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment Too bad we don't have a marching hammers unicode character... that's the "punctuation" used on my DVD version. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Never mind, the original copyright registration[1] uses a dash (although it is unclear whether it is an en or em dash). InverseHypercube 04:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you've linked to, but your link is not to a copyright registration and uses a comma. I don't know how to link in their database, but the registration number for the movie is PA0000146600. It has a full title, which includes director and producer credits in the title, and a short title "The Wall" SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Sorry, those links expire. Just look up a copyright filed for "Pink Floyd" and "The Wall" in 1982. InverseHypercube 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The link you provided didn't expire, it just didn't go to anything. We don't need more specific search parameters because I provided the registration number, which is as specific as you can get. The long title is "Pink Floyd--The Wall / produced by Alan Marshall ; directed by Alan Parker." the short title is "The Wall". My suggestion above is to use the short title as that is what the band uses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
It did expire; it used to link to the specific record. Anyways, yes, the registration number does go directly to it.
The usage of the short title seems quite rare. See [2], for example; it is almost always preceded by "Pink Floyd". Per WP:COMMONNAME, I don't think it should be changed. Although "Pink Floyd—The Wall" may not be as common as "Pink Floyd The Wall" or "Pink Floyd: The Wall", it's only a punctuation difference so I think it's best to stick with the official name. InverseHypercube 17:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You can withdraw your requested move if you want. I don't see a pressing need to change it, and I prefer a title without parenthesis wherever possible myself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus as to how best to separate the subtitle, after two weeks. Cúchullain t/c 20:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd—The Wall → Pink Floyd – The Wall – En dash for British article. Film Fan (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Your request uses a hyphen instead of an en dash. It should be Pink Floyd – The Wall. However, reviewing search results for "pink floyd the wall" film in Google Books, it looks like Pink Floyd: The Wall is a pretty common title in many publications. (And look at the article's external links—they all have different presentations of the title!) I don't think there's a truly wrong answer here, but I think the title with the colon is the most suitable on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. My bad. Film Fan (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
In British print you're much more likely to see a dash than a colon. The colon is used more in American print. Film Fan (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Fair point. I'm not finding any guidelines about how to use colons in article titles, though, and I can't think of any examples that use the en dash like this. I surveyed the lists of British films of recent years, and I only see colon use, not en dash use. What do you think? (I switched the order of your comments, hope you don't mind.) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, like I said, in Britain we use the dash for these things a lot more than a colon. To be honest, the other British articles that use a colon really ought to use a dash, but that's not such a big deal since I don't think it's an exclusive rule. The em dash, however, is never used in British print, so definitely should not be used either in a British article or in its title. Film Fan (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It's worth noting that WP:COMMONAME applies to English language sources in their entirety, regardless of whether they are American/British/Australian etc. I also think that if a colon is commonly used in sources, it is preferable to an emdash or an endash since it is a standard keyboard button. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
There is also a guideline that quite rightly states that British punctuation should be used for British articles, Australian for Australian, etc. I just can't remember which one it is now. And in Britain, the most common way to punctuate it is with a dash, and that's what matters. Film Fan (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
My ticket for the film premiere (*smug*) has "Pink Floyd" on one line and "The Wall" on the next, with no punctuation of either kind. Note also the section above, from December 2011. I'm ambivalent on how we punctuate the title here. Life's too short. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
"My ticket for the film premiere (*smug*) " Ooooh, I'm choking on my own rage! So you thought you'd quite like to go to the show....? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
When it's on two separate lines, that's pretty much confirmation that punctuation is needed when put on one line. Film Fan (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supergirl's Arse

Wow! Nice to see such an epic film inspire 2 pages of debate over a hyphen. Asperger's syndrome, what can you do?

Anyway... in fact in the pool scene, where Geldof was too small to fit into Christopher Reeve's body cast. After a bit of searching they found a similar cast made for Supergirl (Helen Slater). To Geldof's embarassment, it fit perfectly. So there he was, in a swimming pool full of blood, in Supergirl's arse.

That's a part-remembered quote from "Is That It?", Geldof's autobiography which I read a long time ago. My point is, the fact about Geldof's body-cast needs changing. It wasn't a custom one, it was from the film "Supergirl". If anyone still the book, it would be nice to use the proper quote. 94.197.121.219 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

I edited the plot summary to remove references to facts outside of the film (Waters' father's death, Barrett shaving his eyebrows, etc.) and any mentions of the film itself. The summary should be a straight, but succinct, recitation of the major events of the film, without directly saying things like "the film begins..." or "the film ends...". ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those items do not belong in the plot summary, but I think they belong somewhere. They are easily sourced, and they represent core aspects of the plot development. Maybe under Production Concept or Development? Dcs002 (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed interpretations from the plot summary. E.g., Whether Pink was hallucinating or imagining things is rarely clear, and certainly open to other interpretations. I think this section needs to summarise only what is depicted, not interpretations of what is left vague. Such interpretations are WP:OR. (Or would that be WP:SYNTH?) In any case, they represent the editor's personal interpretation, not what is shown in the movie. Dcs002 (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Floyd Pinkerton?

I know J.A. Pinkerton comes from Kind Old King George's scroll, but where in the film is Pink named Floyd Pinkerton? Shouldn't the cast list reflect those credited, and the roles as they are titled in the credits? Bob Geldof is credited as playing Pink, not Floyd Pinkerton. If anything, I think the correct way to give his role is "Pink (Floyd Pinkerton)," provided that somewhere in the film that is shown to be his name. Dcs002 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Better late than never. You are correct the cast does not call him anything else but Pink. Likewise his dad is simply Pink's father. Anything else requires a source or else it's synthesis based on that scroll. Actually it's worse than that, since the word Floyd doesn't appear anywhere at all other than with reference to the title which refers to the band and not necessarily to the character. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Psychological horror?

I don't think it counts as psychological horror.--Jakester499 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it does, and if it's sourced as such then it should stay. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: "I think it does…" Fine. Thanks for that. I've just rolled my 1990's-era MA (Hons) degree certificate into a narrow tube and stabbed my eyes with it. When we said we we were embracing "all-viewpoints-are-equal" postmodernism we never, ever intended this. I'm so sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.105.179 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ISBN number

Where is the ISBN number for the movie in the Wikipedia article? Unbelievable. Rtdrury (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Rtdrury, movies don't have ISBNs, just like the phrase International Standard Book Number implies. Most books do, since 1970. Where did you get the idea a movie should have one? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

International Standard Audiovisual Number (ISAN) is a unique identifier for audiovisual works and related versions, similar to ISBN for books. Maybe he's thinking of that… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.105.179 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Psychological Horror Film? Yes

Calling it a drama is just false. It is dramatic, yes, but not a drama movie. That is just one minor characteristic. If you read Roger Ebert's review here[1] then you will find that all the descriptions of the movie he writes fall under the psychological horror genre. That is why I think it should be changed. It is scary, it's unsettling, and it's a masterpiece.

I think WP:FANCRUFT. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if we are generous and believe that Ebert is defining the film's genre, this is still a minority viewpoint and does not belong in the lede. Only widely accepted genres belong in the lede, per MOS:FILM. Do not restore this content, as you have no consensus. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-pink-floyd-the-wall-1982

"Calling it a drama is just false…" Agreed. However, it's really just an album-length version of what was called a "pop video" at the time the film was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.105.179 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For the record

This is an open proxy used by WP:LTA/NATE. Similar edits are not credible and the proxy should be reported to AIV. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Floyd_–_The_Wall/Archive_3&oldid=1176163234"