 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Disagree as to importance of room 237 even within The Shining (novel) (or (film) or (opera)). In any case, both links are wrong.
- Room 237 refers to the documentary, not the room.
- The Shining is a disambiguation page. If there were a subdisambiguation page The Shining (franchise) or The Shining (Steven King), that would be an appropriate link.
- fixed 14:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
In an edit comment, this is compared to 42 in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That is wrong. Even people who are unfamiliar with HGTTG know that 42 is the answer. Do you know of any similar phenomena in popular culture related to 237? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC) @Typometer: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, our articles on the novel and the opera refer to room 217. If 237 is so important, why have those not been fixed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- The article on the novel (and presumably the opera) is correct. Stanley Kubrick changed the number from 217 to 237, see The Shining (film)#Room number. And it is part of an obsessively studied network of numbers within the film. The links are easily fixed. This is a famous number among cinephiles. The fact that there is a documentary titled Room 237 gives some indication of this. The article 42 states that "42" is one of the tracks on Coldplay's 2008 album Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends. The appearance of 237 in The Shining is certainly better known than that. Typometer (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an article, perhaps not reliable, that 217 was changed to 237 at the request of the Timberline Lodge. That's a much more plausible theory then any proposed in Room 237, and argues against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why Stanley Kubrick changed the room number from 217 seems irrelevant to the question of inclusion, as do the merits of theories (presented in the documentary Room 237 or elsewhere) explaining why he changed it to 237. The point is that 237 is a famous number in cinema because it is a prominent number in an influential film. Famous enough to lead many to analyse it, and recognizable enough to be used as the title of a documentary. Typometer (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is an article, perhaps not reliable, that 217 was changed to 237 at the request of the Timberline Lodge. That's a much more plausible theory then any proposed in Room 237, and argues against inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Tag removed. No consensus for removal of the content, and I don't see how it's any less important than 237 being a "lucky" number, whatever the hell that means, or that there's only four smaller numbers that are the sum of two smaller square pyramidal numbers. Like, how many such smaller numbers do we expect? In the end what's important is what our sources tell us is important, even if we don't agree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)