Talk:High Fidelity (novel)

Untitled
We start off with discussing the book, as we should, but the article is disambiguated as (movie). How do we resolve this? -- Zoe
 * If there's no other work titled High Fidelity, I'd remove the disambiguation. --KQ
 * Yeah, the capital F disambiguates it from High fidelity. I'll move it.  -- Zoe

Yikes. Aren't other sites available for this stuff? Is every movie going to have a page on Wikipedia?

(or every book, for that matter?)


 * Probably not. But High Fidelity is important enough that no-one's going to delete an article about it if it makes a reasonable amount of sense. The frontiers of "notability" are way more obscure than this, but there are a lot of books that no-one has yet seen fit to write about. --rbrwr&plusmn; 09:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I loved the movie (never read the book). Having said that: What makes it "important"? I thought the script was insightful and the acting was top-notch -- but "important"? It hasn't really influenced any larger trends in scriptwriting, cinematography, etc. It certainly had no impact on society. I've never read those sort of claims about the book, either. So define "important."
 * A worldwide best-selling book and an extremely popular film? I'd call that important. Besides, there's way more obscure stuff on here than this. And it's my favourite film ever made, and my favourite book ever written, so a massive Woo-Yay for this article.
 * The book/film has just recently been adapted into a musical of the same name. The production is in Boston. It's either opened right now or just about to open, since I saw a full-page advertisement for it in the Metro and I keep hearing about it on the radio. Disambiguation time! :)
 * The film has a huge cult following, which in itself makes it important. As for the musical mentioned above by an anonymous editor, refer to High Fidelity. SFTVLGUY2 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Film
Methinks the film needs its own page, simply because we have different styles of doing things on Wikipedia, and most other books-into-films have seperate articles for each. 75.34.1.4 18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - it's confusing. --DearPrudence 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. --RattleandHum
 * I agree, as well... --slickshoes3234
 * And so do I. The film had its own page that inexplicably was redirected here; it should have remained as is. I have created a separate article for the Broadway musical version and I feel the movie should have one as well. SFTVLGUY2 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to have the book and film on the same article. I don't even know why this is being talked about, it just needs to be done 198.145.84.139 08:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Costello song of the same name
Does anyone know if the title of the novel comes from the Elvis Costello song with the same name (this song, High Fidelity, was on the 1980 attractions alblum Get Happy!)? When I glanced at an American copy of the book, the dust jacket mentioned Elvis Costello (It said the protagonist obsessed over the question of what was his favorite Elvis Costello song). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.12 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm almost sure it does. --67.124.89.193 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be shot?
I read in the article Genesis here that in the book the person says Genesis is one of the bands that should be shot. Is this true? What are the other four? That would make a good addition to this article, as well as other Top 5's in the book. ~ Rollo44 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Index
Where can an index of all the bands/artists mentioned in the book be found? (Can it be found?) --67.124.89.193 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Highfidelitybook.jpg
Image:Highfidelitybook.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 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) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why unsourced?
Why is this page marked "unsourced"? Everything currently mentioned in the article is information that can be found within the book, except the reference to the film and musical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraser J Allison (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC) =top fives= why were the top fives taken away don't you have better things to spend your time on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.246.90 (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of the lists (apparently restored since the above comment) is perhaps most precious commentary about the novel and wikipedia editors that one could possibly make.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done to editor(s) who restored these lists. They speak directly to the character of the protagonist and are, of course, just the sort of thing that readers with an interest in this novel might look to WP for. A more discerning critique of the faults of the protagonist—and WP editors of a similar bent—will be found by reading the novel itself. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that the lists contravene WP:V and WP:NOT. Having them take up more than 75% of the article is just ridiculous. There is a place for interesting fancruft like this, but the Wikipedia mainspace is not that place. --John (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lists are so unimportant to the book as a whole and obsessing over them completely misses the point of the main character's emotional journey (which is *away* from childishly categorising his life like this). It is ridiculous that they take up so much of the article when other sections such as Critical Reception are entirely missing. Their inclusion not only takes away from first-time readers discovering them as they go along, but also makes the whole article look amateurish; this is stuff that belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.160.108 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)