Talk:The Princess Bride (film)

Memorable quotes

Do you think we should maybe add a "Memorable Quotes" section, especially for Inigo Montoya? Rmrfstar 13:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) lll

Inconceivable! --Carl

... not to neglet the other characters... I'll add it when I get the chance. -- Rmrfstar 12:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Started the section. Please add. --Banana04131 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section because there was a Wikiquote tag at the bottom of the page. It seems to defeat the point of Wikiquote if we begin quoting things in the Wikipedia articles -- MacAddct1984 02:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see it.

--Banana04131 17:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I added popular quotes which someone else incorporated into the Reception section. Unfortunately, although their popularity is common knowledge, I don't have an official citation. Not sure what would constitute an official citation to "prove" that a quotation became famous. 3Tigers 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

music

I would argue that most of what appears under "soundtrack" if not the whole section is not necessary; it seems POV, trivial (not encyclopedic) and kind of silly. I don't want to delete it, though, as someone found it notable . . . thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo58 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think some discussion of Knopfler writing the soundtrack is perhaps warranted. I don't know that anything beyond that is notable. john k 01:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As a massive fan of that album I would really oppose its removal. It is one of a few Knopfler soundtrack albums and is popular enough to be detailed, and the fact that such a well-known person did the soundtrack is certainly notable. Perhaps spinning it off to a separate article would be a good compromise, but I'm not sure if it's really worth doing that. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Knopfler did NOT write Storybook Love, however. That was only *produced* by Knopfler but, words and music, were written by the late Willy DeVille (who also is the vocalist). The song pre-dated Knopfler's work with DeVille. 98.228.210.33 (talk)Scotti —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Iocaine/iocane

It's definitely iocane. I just looked it up in the book. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirected from article on Iocane. Full text was:

Iocane powder is a fictional poison used in a "battle of the wits" in William Goldman's classic novel The Princess Bride. Goldman describes it as tasteless, odorless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the deadliest poisons known to mankind. It originates from Australia.

See also

• Fictional medicine and drugs

-WCFrancis 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Andre the Giant

William Goldman, in the 20th anniversary edition of the book, states that Andre the Giant was the only person ever considered for the role of Fezzik. I suggest deletion of the references to Arnold and Kareem unless someone has proof.132.79.14.15 20:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Stranger

Actually, on page 325 of the paperback edition in the introduction for Buttercup's Baby, he mentions a young Arnold wanted to play the part of Fezzik, but by the time the movie went into production, they could no longer afford him. --MorgaineDax 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters, this is what he says in Which Lie Did I Tell?, a collection of tales and observations on the film industry. The first mention is in the list of people at the first script reading, and the italics are his: "...Wally Shaw, the evil genius Vizzini. Mandy Patinkin, who played Inigo, was very much there. And sitting by himself quietly—he always tried to sit quietly—was Andre the Giant, who was Fezzik." He returns to Andre: "A. R. Roussimoff was the other new kid on the block that rehearsal morning. Actually, he was not precisely new to any of us, he was just new as an actor, because as Andrew the Giant he was the most famous wrestler in the world. I had become a lunatic Andre fan, would go to the Garden to watch him entertain the masses. I became convinced that if there ever was to be a movie, he should be Fezzik, the strongest man".

So even if Arnold was interested at one stage (and this could be ten years earlier), Andre was Goldman's preference. However, this film took years and years to get off the ground. The rights were bought, Goldman submitted a screenplay; changes at the studio put an end to that; he bought the rights back; there were two other "definitely going to make it"s which went wrong; ten years went by... plenty of time for all of these facts to happen: for Arnold to be interested; for Arnold to price himself out; for Goldman to be convinced that Andre was the man.

I think at least some of this history (the Which Lie..? book goes into quite some detail) should probably be in the article: where would it be appropriate to mention the meandering route it took from book to finished film? Between "Storyline" and "Soundtrack" sections?

--Telsa 10:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Buttercups Baby

The fictional (ie, nonexistant) sequel should be mentioned, don't you think? I am missing my copy of the book, but the epilogue mentions a forthcoming sequel, a sample chapter of which was available by writing to the publisher. I think the title was Buttercup's Baby. Can anyone verify?

You're correct on all counts. It could possibly warrant its own article, but I think that a section here could cover it fully. violet/riga (t) 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone verify the most recent edit? It doesn't jibe with my memory, but my memory is hardly definitive. I think the chapter is noteworthy, whether it's a sample of BB or not. Scix 08:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello? The edit I refer to is the one that removed my note that one could request a sample chapter of BB. The note said that it was something else printed, but I think this is in error. I don't want to revert it without verification, but I don't seemt ohave my copy anymore. Scix 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spinal Tap

I'm taking the thing out about the eleven fingers and knobs that go to eleven. there's no connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.81.42 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hi, I replaced the image in the infobox with the original North American movie poster. What do you think of the change? Should a DVD section be added? Because this image has no article linking to it: [[Image:ThePrincessBride.png|center|thumb|ThePrincessBride.png]]

I moved the picture onto the article. It's in the Cast section for now. Tocharianne 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Neeson

According to IMDB, Liam Neeson tried out for Fezzik. From his biography on the site. "He recalled his most embarrassing moment in acting as when, relatively early in his career, he auditioned for the role of Fezzik, the giant, in The Princess Bride (1987). He said Rob Reiner had a look of disgust on his face when he realized that Neeson was "only" 6' 4", and 'Andre the Giant' ended up getting the role." Should this be included? Of course not 'as-is', make it Wikipedia friendly. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Souns good for the trivia section Scix 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wesley or Westley?

IMDb says Westley, but in this article it's Welsey... which one? Natalie 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the complete text linked in the article says Westley... I'll go through and change it. Natalie 17:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed this problem again. I know that Westley sounds a lot like Wesley, but it's really not. It's Westley in the book and in the credits of the movie. Myridon (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia note

The article says that Inigo and Wesley use real fencing techniques during the duel scene, but that is not correct. Inigo and Wesley cite the names of reknowned fencing masters (Capo Ferro, Bonetti, Agrippa, etc.) from history, but their techniques are not authentic. --Runolfr 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I'll change it. Lisiate 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary editing?

Someone flagged the plot summary as too long. I think it can be cut a little, but many classic films have Wikipedia plot summaries that are at least as detailed. For instance, see the article on "Casablanca". 3Tigers 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for the justification of the tag, and WP:WAX for a refutation of the "but other articles have this" argument. The reason this template exists is because a very easy way to contribute to Wikipedia is to pick an article on a popular film and start filling in every detail from the plot. Chris Cunningham 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you please link some examples of appropriate length? I hope it's clear that I'm not seeking argument but clarification via example. Thanks. 3Tigers 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the old version which was overly long and contained unnecessary and confusing detail. Much of the text was clumsy. Such as: "Fezzik finds four white horses, and Buttercup jumps off the balcony into Fezzik’s arms to mount the horse. Upon killing Rugen, Inigo is unsure of what to do with his life. Westley offers him the title of Dread Pirate Roberts, and Inigo accepts, and they both jump to the horses. Westley, Buttercup, Inigo and Fezzik ride away." Why is it necessary to explain that Vizzini 'drank from a cup containing poison.' Just say he, 'drank poison'!

What difference does it make what color the horses are, and why describe how Buttercup jumps off the balcony and into Fezzik's arms to mount the horse? Then it has to mention that Inigo and Westley also "both jump to the horses." What's the point of mentioning "rodents of unusual size" when it has nothing to do with the overall plot? The passage with Miracle Max was poorly written and in a way that the writer just wanted to include some humorous dialogue. Movie and book summaries are meant to be a BRIEF overview of the plot and NOT a retelling of every detail, particularly the writer's favorite scenes and quoting the dialogue.

A basic rule of writing is to use as few words as possible. If something can be said in two words instead of three, then use that. Summarize an idea in one longer sentence rather than two or three (or four) repetitive choppy ones that are disconnected and only add "dead weight" to an article. Also avoid clunky prepositional phrases, clichés or familiar phrasing, and avoid negative wording (i.e. Do NOT use "not"). Write using an "active voice" and not a passive one. PNW Raven (talk)

Thanks, PNW Raven for improving the summary, using multiple short edits to any one of which people could object. I hope others who wish to improve the summary will follow that method. Massively reverting to the earlier version, about which people had rightfully complained, is not an improvement. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help. Sorry for ruffling some editors' feathers, but the article needed help.PNW Raven (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Princess Bride Category

Should there be a category for this? Between the book, movie, and characters articles there's a fair number of related pages to lump into one. Angryscientist 08:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like your chance to be bold!

Atlant 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Script notes

Why do you keep deleting the quote about Gen. Law? Its interesting, true and at least as relevant and important as crap like Andre the Giant's hand supposedly fitting over the princess' head when she was cold and other inane observances I read on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.254.176 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you taking the origin of the quote from a particular published source? If so, just include a proper citation for it. If it is your own conclusion, it is original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (it violates the tenet that everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable). --GargoyleMT 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There, its worked into the article, its sourced, and it certainly seems reasonable, relevant and as encyclopaedic as the rest of the article. I would certainly like to know why some people seem to feel they have the power to deem some trivia valid while deleting other factoids they didn't originate themselves. Half the article should be trashed if you applied gargoyel's logic above.

What do you mean by "your own conclusion?" and why the hard-core attitude on this particular movie for excluding passages? Just a random movie I happened to read tonight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)#Trivia

• In the scene where Shep interrupts Carl having sex with a blonde woman and beats him, when Shep chokes Carl with his belt, the camera focuses on Carl's feet lifted off the ground and shaking in the air. This camera shot is a reference to Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing", in the scene that Radio Raheem gets choked by the police with that exact same shot of his feet shaking when lifted off the ground.

• Carl says he's in town for "just a little of the ol' in-and-out," quoting a line from the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange.

• The film Little Miss Sunshine features a character named Stan Grossman, almost certainly named after the character of the same name in Fargo.

• Fargo is set in the year 1987. This was the same year as the release of the Coens' movie Raising Arizona.

• Bear Cat wood chippers are made in Fargo, North Dakota.

• On Invader Zim there is a scene in the episode Planet Jackers in which two aliens are in a ship together and one starts to start a conversation and the other won't talk. Then he says, "You know it wouldn't kill you to talk once in a while" and the other says, "Quiet or I'll eat your head. Is that enough words for you?". This was inspired by a scene in Fargo between Buscemi and Stormare.

• An episode of King of the Hill has Dale Gribble steal Bobby's ventriloquist dummy and feed him into a wood chipper because of a bad experience he had had with a dummy as a child.

• Pam Beesly, a character from the TV show, The Office, lists the film as one of her five favorite movies.

Not one has a citation. All are pretty speculative, and most are pretty inane, of little value toward understanding the movie Fargo and pretty much irrelevant to the subject. The last one is my particular favorite as a very lame addition to an already long article. And also, any pop culture reference to a wood chipper must be added to the Fargo article, apparently. They did, however, miss the "In and Out Burger" Big Lebowski tie-in.

My point is, if you are going to be that strict about trivia on movie articles on WikiP you have a lot of work cut out for you, almost all the movie articles have tons of this stuff. Fargo is just an example. I think the Vinccini/Bernard Law quote is at LEAST as interesting, educational, relevant and germane as the dreck I quoted above. Raphaelaarchon 07:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not the person who removed the item of trivia in question, I was only trying to be helpful in offering a longer explanation than is in the edit summary. As such, I suspect some of your comments were meant to be targeted at someone else. Since the phrasing of Vizzini's quote is only a similar phrasing to the quote from Bernard Law Montgomery, it's speculation to link the two without a source. I think I made a mistake in suggesting that it was original research, instead of an unverified statement (both are core policies that seem to overlap and interact). You're right that the rules are applied inconsistently. Or perhaps not applied at all. Not everyone knows about Wikipedia policies, or tries to apply them. Justifying not applying them in one article because they're not applied in another article can only lead to a giant deadlock, where the policy is never applied. (I think there's a policy or guide that expands on this reasoning, but I've spent a half hour looking and can't find it.) I love the Princess Bride, and I think any inspiration for Vizzini's quote is interesting as well. My search only came up with unreliable sources ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Likewise, neither DVD commentary track from Goldman or Reiner mention the quote or its origin (either would be a reliable source). Please help try to find a reliable source for it. (I think this sort of issue why the Manual of Style advocates against Trivia sections, and why the WP:TRIVIA article mentions OR and citing of sources specifically.) --GargoyleMT 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that this particular factoid is _not_ in the same league with the garbage I posted above, and that there are much more egregious examples of artical fluff out there that aren't getting the scrutiny and lack of love my little addition did. There are rules and there are de facto practices. Wiki has and is always making up its own rules, there is no right or wrong, there is only consensus. If just seems to me people selectively cite wiki rules to screen items with which they disagree, while there are much more flagrant problems that are not addressed because people like the item. So, I guess I'm saying, the widespresad and continued use of items in articles that are unsourced or vaguely sourced means that complaints seem to be pretty subjective.

On another note I was reading a number of the Coen Bros' movie articles. Yikes. Raising Arizona is a mess as well as several others, besides Fargo. I wish I had the time to do work on all these, the movies deserve better. Raphaelaarchon 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this again. It's an original, unsourced observation and to my knowledge it's still speculative (there's never been any confirmation that the line was a deliberate reference to Montgomery). Should there be a reliable source, cool, stick it back in.

As for the observation that some other articles suck, what is commonly ignored is that some articles don't, and if we're looking to compare this to another article then we should be comparing it to better articles, not worse ones. Chris Cunningham 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a edit war, but you seem to be acting arbitrary, heavy handed and fascist in piskcing on this one factoid, when THIS article, not just others, is full of unsourced crap, speculation and in fact incorrect information. At least the section I espoused is factual. Raphaelaarchon 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks and assume good faith are good policies to keep in mind here. There are mechanisms for changing policy, if you disagree with it. --GargoyleMT 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well one mechanism I'm going to avail myself of is to arbitrarily take it upon myself to edit out anything in any article that I unilaterally find invalid or unnecessary, as you seem to do. My mistake was adding a valid passage to an article that an obsessive censor has chosen to audit. And I'll continue to revert it from time to time, with rewrites and resources, perhaps I can please your dictatorial editing sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphaelaarchon (talk • contribs) 13:58, May 29, 2007

Who are you responding to? I can't tell from your wording or the indention level of your reply. --GargoyleMT 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

How did the following section about Fargo wind up on the Princess Bride page? 3Tigers 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was added in the course of the discussion over original research. Particularly, this diff. --GargoyleMT 13:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question

Why does "ROUS" redirect here? Dbutler1986 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the movie, R.O.U.S. stands for the "rodents of unusual size" that Wesley and Buttercup encounter in the Fire Swamp. Joyous! | Talk 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That hardly seems a good enough reason for a redirect. That's a rather minor thing. 74.136.42.97 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And it isn't mentioned in the article, so it's just really confusing. "What? I typed ROUS, why am I getting The Princess Bride?" --Dbutler1986 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

It is dubious to say that Íñigo Montoya is ambidexterous, since he mentions not being left handed and swaps hands in the sword fight scene. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's ambidextrous, he has just trained enough to fight well with either hand. It's not quite the same thing, as in any other case he's probably right-handed. Andrea (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear from the book that he is right-handed and fights better when he switches to his right hand. I'm going to change it. Farannan (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of dubious things, what about the rumor that this movie was almost titled, My Dinner with André the Giant?

Inigo or Iñigo?

In some instances across the article, Mandy Patinkin's character is spelt "Inigo", in others, "Iñigo". Could this be settled? -- megA (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: It's "Inigo" (without tilde) in the book as well as in the film, despite the un-spanish spelling, so I'll change it according to the sources. -- megA (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They're pronounced differently too. N-tilde is pronounced "ny". In the film he pronounces his name "Inigo", so it's a plain N. It's not correct Spanish, but there's not much we can do about it. (Vizzini is pronounced with the English Z sound, too.) 91.107.156.228 (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the premise of the book is that it's an abridged version and the original isn't written very well and so might have this kind of error. In the movie, it's being read by Peter Falk's character who wouldn't necessarily know the correct pronunciation of foreign names. So keep the linguistic errors intact as they may have been intentional.--RDBury (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

plot map is needed!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.57.206 (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ROUS

ROUS shouldnt really link here. Its been used since, like, and the film didnt even coin it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.82.78 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sword Fight Between Wesley and Inigo

The article sites Rob Reiner stating (during the DVD commentary) that mirroring was used in filming the sword fight. However, on the Blu-Ray version of the movie, there is no mention of this. He says they both trained with both hands and both fought with both hands. I don't have a copy of the DVD version, though, so I don't know if his commentary is different. During the credits, Reiner says that his commentary was recorded on January 24, 2001. Maybe the information was taken from elsewhere?

Viking415 (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The US Blu-Ray edition comes with a standard DVD of the movie with the (presumably) the same commentary. I will check my older DVD and see if Reiner discusses a mirror-image set. I am highly skeptical of the mirror-image set claim.

Signinstranger (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I attended "The Princess Bride Live Commentary" event on August 15, 2013 at AMPAS. Jason Reitman asked Rob Reiner about the mirror image set. Rob Reiner indicated that this was not true, and that there was only one set. In additional, The Academy live tweeted "#PrincessBride Fact: The left hand/right handed swordplay was real! Doubles were only used for flips."

--Kuinak2 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Cast List

Is there a reason Wallace Shawn is not included in the cast list in the body of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.213.50 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems someone inadvertently removed Wallace Shawn from cast list while editing this article. I have restored him to the list. Thanks for the heads up. - Kollision (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Torture Chamber

Whoever changed the revision of the plot info about the torture chamber should change it back. The torture chamber is not in the castle in ether the book nor the movie. It is a secret underground chamber in a nearby forest referred to as "The pit of Despair" in which the secret entrance is via a Tree. Go watch the movie, and then change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the book it's called, "The Zoo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.35 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Plots

I don't usually edit in the area of books, films, or movies. I edit biographies of musicians, so the Mark Knopfler tie to this film (which I, of course loved) brought me here. I didn't check WP policy-- I'm seriously sleep deprived at the moment, but I have a serious question. Is it wise to outline the plot, including the ending?! I mean, why ruin the suspense for others who never saw the movie? Isn't there a way to cover the fundamentals, but not the final outcome? Otherwise, where's the fun in it? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER but the short answer is, we're comprehensive and we don't hide details. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of plot, the plot section in this article mentions the Rodents of Unusual Size and the Lightning Sand, but not the Flame Spurts. I can't be the only one who remembers that there are three terrors of the Fire Swamp! Lithonius (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of production information

Per this edit [5], while I would argue that the organization and tone needs to be improved, most of the content being removed is actually sourced and is encyclopedic, and thus its removal is inappropriate. Some of it reads like trivia in the current form it is in (single-sentence paragraphs) but the individual facts are actually reasonable and just need better cohension. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Princess Bride (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070401175155/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/02162007/entertainment/theater/bride_not_to_be_theater_michael_riedel.htm? to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=1737
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070225201851/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/02162007/entertainment/theater/bride_not_to_be_theater_michael_riedel.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162007/entertainment/theater/bride_not_to_be_theater_michael_riedel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary

Personally, I preferred the less-verbose version. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible setting of the framing story

[Insertion--Here is the Mandy Patinkin quote that forms the basis for the proposed edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMZwX1LKllU&t=44s,

 inserted at the top here for the convenience of anyone interested so they don't have to hunt for it.--Vybr8 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)]

Vybr8: This edit has been challenged by two editors (Masem and me). Per WP:BRD, you boldly added the material (three times), you were reverted and now (if not earlier) it is time to discuss the issue.

Yes, the youtube clip was a copyright violation. Someone with no credible claim to the rights to the video posted the clip online. Their vague fair use claim that their use is somehow "educational" does not change this. Wikipedia does not use postings of copyrighted material without a credible claim.

IMDb is not a reliable source for this information. Please review Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.

It is entirely possible that the framing story was intended to take place in a particular suburb. However, it is trivial. Independent reliable sources do not mention the possible location of the framing story, let alone discuss it. We could find sources for lots of details in the plot/production that are simply beyond the scope of this project. The straightforward approach to sorting out encyclopedic information verses unnecessary trivia is coverage in independent reliable sources. IMDb is not reliable. A "behind-the scenes" (read: promotional) interview is not independent. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the interview if it is legit would be fine for sourcing that the bedroom scene was meant to be in Evanston and that would be valid to include. Just that we need to know if that interview is legit and its source, from which a cite video could be done. However, it is OR to say that because the screenwriter was from Evanston that lends credence to this possibility. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the original video (given an acceptable cite) would be a reliable source for lots of trivia. DVD commentary tracks are similar: reliable sources for lots of unnecessary clutter: Who missed a day of filming due to a stomach ache, each actor's favorite lunch entrees, random jokes cracked on set, how many fresh t-shirts the lead went through each day, etc.

In the present case, the location of the frame story (not even the story proper) was left out of the final film and no one has seen fit to bother discussing it outside of a random promotional video. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that it can be verging on trivia since the setting of the room matters not to the actual film beyond being a contemporary American boy's room. There is a content decision whether to include it if it can be sourced. However, the nature of the source being a primary interview does not diminish its inclusion. If it was a significant insight on creative process, then that would be okay. But here, yes, it's bordering trivia. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree that, fundamentally, who cares? He could be in Sydney for all the difference it would make to the film. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The cliffs could be Ayers Rock, for all the difference it would make to the film. But it is not. Are you all wanting to delete the "film was shot in various locations in the United Kingdom and Ireland" aspects of the Production section based on the same reasoning you're putting forth here?

What you all might see as trivial, others see to be critically important.

Goldman was born and raised in Chicago. Do you think he sees the house being in Evanston (Chicago suburb) to be trivial?

The grandson is wearing a Chicago Bears jersey. More trivia?

Au contraire. This article is in need of improvement. Princess Bride is a movie about true love. More importantly, it is a story about a boy who at the start does not care about true love. He cares about sports. At the end of the movie, he asks gramps to come back tomorrow to read the book again. This is what's known as character development. Over the course of the 98 minutes run time, he has grown. In the same time period, as an audience, we have grown.

Chicago is not trivia. Nor is it merely a "Possible setting of the framing story". It is where a main actor of the movie tells us with no ambiguity that the story takes place. It is not OR to state this and in the next sentence state that the author of the story was born and raised there. These are two facts that are both irrefutable. No causation was offered in the edit. If a reader chooses to assume any causal connection, that is totally on them. (Or someone might be motivated to ask Rob Reiner or Goldman about it, and then at some future point that info could be included ...which could make for an even higher quality article.)

Rob Reiner could have had Fred Savage wearing any shirt. A plain white T. Or a Captain America shirt. But what was shown very prominently in the movie was a Chicago Bears jersey. This does not merely represent the boy's passion for sport. He could have been wearing a soccer jersey and could have had a soccer ball in his room. But football is far and away the most popular sport in the US. And the Bears were not just any team. At the time of the movie, they were king of the hill in the NFL. This means that they were the top of the top of the top. And the jersey is not just any Super Bowl winning player. It's superstar Walter Payton. Then there are the 'GSH' letters on the jersey which stand for George S Halas, a man who was likewise born and raised in Chicago, founder and owner of the team to the day of his death a few years prior to the movie.

And we get to watch the grandson by the end of the film not show any care of that. He is fully focused on the book.

If you all really believe that the story being set in Chicago is trivial and does not belong in the article, then there would be high cause to delete a heck of a lot more info that the article presents.

The theme of the movie is passion. It is possible that when writing the story, Goldman was hoping that his book would help influence many people to be more passionate about their own lives. And that could even apply to Wikipedia editors in what we choose to include in articles as key points versus what we leave out as unimportant trivia.

I apologize for my delay in responding. I just returned from travel out of my country where I did not have internet connection. SummerPhDv2.0, thank you for starting this Talk section.--Vybr8 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are those who would find it "critically important" that the framing story was almost set in a particular suburb. There are those who would like to know the star signs of the director, writer and stars. There are those who would like to read an extensive list of differences between the book and the movie. Or how well the actors got along. Or who the author might have named the characters after. Or thousands of other things.

We could fill up an entire Wiki with every possible detail available about the book, the film, the actors, the setting, the filming locations, etc., down to and including the third digit of Fred Savage's mother's best friend's locker combination when she was in middle school. (If you would like to establish such a Wiki, you are more than free to do so, BTW.) Wikipedia, however is an encyclopedia. We do not include everything about every topic that some person somewhere might want to read about. Instead, we have established basic policies and guidelines which limit our scope. In general, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. How do we decide what to include?

In my opinion, the shortcut on this is fairly straightforward: Independent reliable sources are required for most information. Primary sources (such as bonus material on a DVD of the film or material in the film itself) are generally used only for very basic information (major cast and crew names and such). If independent reliable sources do not discuss the material, no one believed that material would be interesting to a meaningful number of people. What did people want to know about this film? Did a significant number of people want to know the horoscopes of the actors or where the framing story was almost set? Apparently not.

If you can locate independent reliable sources that discuss the framing story's unused setting, I might be persuaded. Otherwise, I doubt I will.

If a consensus develops here that is contrary to my opinion, it will be included without me.

Otherwise, at the moment, the consensus is to leave it out.

If you feel there is other information in the article that should be removed, feel free to raise that as a separate issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to argue for removal of anything. The position I've been promoting here is for us to be smart in distinguishing trivia from important info. In a nutshell...

The development of what the grandson finds to be meaningful and interesting, transitioning from Super Bowl champion team to caring about true love is important.

Horoscopes and locker combinations, not so much.--Vybr8 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not have independent reliable sources discussing this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit was based on clear info presented by a primary actor from the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMZwX1LKllU&t=44s

The reason this source was masked was because of your assertion that it was a copyvio. It had nothing to do with any lack of reliability. Mandy Patinkin is perfectly clear in his statement in how the framing story takes place in the Chicago area.

As for the reasons I have provided as to why the location is important, I have only added that here in this Talk section. I have not been advocating that anyone add these reasons into the article.--Vybr8 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The source is likely from bonus material on the DVD. Without a credible claim to the rights for the material (and using a faulty "fair use" claim), we treat it as a copyright violation. It is not an independent reliable source because it is not independent. The producers of a film can spill forth as much info as they would like about their production: interviews with the actors, director, costumers, set designers, etc.; "behind the scenes" features and so on. They want the material to be covered in as many sources as possible. It's part of how they promote the film. If no one republishes the info, it is a good indication the info is trivial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed an external link to a blog that briefly mentions Chicago stuff in the kid's bedroom (along with substantially more material about He Man stuff that Vybr8 doesn't seem to feel is as "critically important" as the unused setting for the framing story. I stated that the blog is a blog.

On reverting my removal, Vybr8 states, "You reverted an external link based upon the standard of a source. This link was never offered as a source." You are correct that WP:SPS states blogs/SPSs cannot be used as sources and this was an external link. I probably should have pointed to WP:ELNO, which clarifies that we should "generally avoid providing external links to...(b)logs, personal web pages and most fansites."

Consider for a moment what the external links section of, say, George W. Bush, September 11 attacks or Vaccine controversies would look like if we did include blogs. I find over a million blog entries on George W. on wordpress alone. Yes, the "Branded in the 80s" blog has a 4 part entry about all of the stuff shown in the background of the framing story. If you want to write or read about such things, blogs are a great outlet. However this one blog (out of over 67,000 on wordpress that mention the film) does not have anything encyclopedic to add.

Side note: A followup null edit by Vybr8 states, "Here is a quote from the policy you cited: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." External links are *not* mainspace." Although WP:ELNO would have been a better explanation, I feel I should point out that "mainspace" is not meant to refer to the "main" part of an article. Rather, it refers to live articles, rather than "sandbox" articles; "everything in articles, lists and captions". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken on what 'mainspace' means. Thanks for letting me know.

As for what is and is not appropriate to add as an external link, there is an overriding principle that can be applied here:

Is the link useful? (see WP:IAR)

It is easy to gather that the reason behind the vast majority of the links "normally to be avoided" is that they are generally of low quality or are not helpful toward improving an article. The exact guideline says to avoid: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority."

We can see right there how it gives a clearcut exception. This tells us that if the info is of high quality, then adding the link can be an improvement to the article. My reason for adding this particular link is because it provides useful info. It is not loaded with speculation and rants. The basic message in WP:ELNO is to not add garbage to an article's external link section. It is clear to me that the link I am advocating is not garbage.--Vybr8 (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can ignore the rules to include the link. There is, however, no consensus to do so. We could include any one of the 67,000 blogs that mention this film. Why this one? Why not ALL of them. Why not 50 of them that we select at random. What makes this one special? Heck, you've singled out one of four parts of a blog by the same author. I get that you think it is "critically important". However, I see nothing to indicate this is a widely held view. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is suggesting the addition of thousands of blog posts. The proposed 'External link' edit is for the inclusion of one webpage that offers info about the grandson's room. This is info not provided anywhere in the article.

As for being 'part 4', that page was not the author's 4th on this movie. All of the previous (and subsequent) installments were on different movies (listed here).

And how you see this as a case of special pleading, I don't follow your reasoning there as well. I just found one page. There is nothing exceptional about it. If anyone would rather substitute with some other source of info about the granson's room, I don't see how that would be a problem.

As for the notion of what I myself find to be "critically important", I actually don't see that one page to be critical. I added it because I thought others might find it useful.

Let's be clear that this section is discussing two separate edits. One was my original addition to the 'Production' section. And here we are now discussing the later edit of me adding the 'External link'. I think it would be helpful to split with a sub-header.

...and I maintain that the original choice of this Talk section header is not accurate. (We are not discussing a mere "Possible setting". We are discussing the place that Mandy Patinkin unequivocally says where the setting was.)--Vybr8 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As a point to the above, I want to stress that we do not require the information to be from an independent source to be verifyable , as long as we have that source to point to. Many many other film article use interviews with cast and crew to establish details that are not reported by otherwise independent sources, that's not a problem. And we need independent sources to show that the film itself is noted by others (which is clearly met) but not all sources need to be independent. Here, though, we're talking a bit of trivia (that the room was meant to be based in a Chicago suburb) which only appears to be have picked up from a DVD commentary and not re-iterated elsewhere to any great degree , showing there's little interest in this fact. (If anything, the implications from an interview with the child actor that suggests the bedroom scene was filmed somewhere in London near the rest of the production is a more interesting fact to include.). --MASEM (t) 13:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The level of interest is not the criteria that policy guides us to use as to whether or not a fact should be included. Just look at the first sentence of the article. How many people care that the movie was done in "DeLuxe Color"? That info is meaningful to an extremely narrow subset of readers. Yet narrow interest is not what makes a fact trivial. Trivia is characterized by its lack of importance. As to the framing story happening in Chicago, I've given a solid argument as to why this info is not trivial. And just because you do not buy the argument presented, that does not mean that other readers will see it as you do. I suggest you consider the possibility that what you find to be trivial, other will see as important (or at least, not unimportant).

Also, if we were to gain evidence that the home scene was filmed in the UK, I would agree with you that that would be a helpful thing to add to the article.--Vybr8 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus so far is to not include discussion of the possible setting of the framing story (the film does not establish the location; mere inclusion of Chicago Bears merchandise establishes only that someone, likely the kid, likes the Chicago Bears, He Man, etc.). Without independent reliable sources discussing this, I don't see my opinion changing. As we already have more than two opinions, we're past requesting a third opinion. Feel free to start a requests for comment. (That I do not see reason for including that one blog is based on the existence of thousands of similarly trivial blogs. Why include this blog about items in the background but not blogs about feminist themes, Ted Cruz, "true love", allusions to/in other films, Jesus, fencing, shadow play, parenting, fantasy vs. reality, mental illness, or any of several thousand other topics? Because it's "critically important"? I get that it is important to you, but I see nothing to indicate it is of encyclopedic importance.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Re possible: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (Heh.)

I am fine with leaving this where it is at right now. I have never gone out of my way to recruit anyone to support any position that I hold, and I don't intend to start today. If others come along and jump into this discussion to help solidify consensus (one way or the other) then I will be glad to take another look at this. Adios for now.--Vybr8 (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think any of your edits have been improvements. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Season of the framing story: Christmas

The above section deals only with the location of the house where the grandfather reads the book to his grandson. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the timing of the story is Christmas. The book itself is a Christmas present that is given to the boy. And it is an heirloom. I see time&place to be an important elements that would improve the article.

It could even be imagined that without this book being in the family, the grandson and even his mother might never have come into existence in the first place.--Vybr8 (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a colorful theory. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Any theory of my own making is not something that belongs in the article.

The purpose of this section is to advocate the addition of the simple fact that the framing story is set during Christmas time and that the book is given to the grandson as a heirloom present. Not a theory. An easily verifiable fact, straight from the movie, evident to anyone who's watched it.--Vybr8 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• The Princess Bride (film) → The Princess Bride
• The Princess Bride → The Princess Bride (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film article gets about 7 times the page views of the novel, and the soundtrack barely registers. This is not a slam-dunk WP:TWODABS situation, but I believe the soundtrack is sufficiently marginal that it fits the spirit. The Princess Bride is truly one of those movies that has overtaken its source material in long-term significance. The lede mentions some accolades, of which I think its inclusion in the National Film Registry is the most significant.

I don't think we are doing readers any favors by keeping a disambiguation page at the base title. The novel is prominently linked at the top of the film article (and vice versa, for that matter). There's enough warrant for keeping the disambiguation page still, but no reason to favor it thus. I was surprised that this hadn't been discussed more often, and that the novel was at the base title until just six months ago. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging participants from that discussion: @Netoholic, ACB Smith, Steel1943, Gonnym, Paintspot, Songwaters, Old Naval Rooftops, and Born2cycle:.
  • @BDD: just so you know, you have to use the Ping template in order to ping someone. (Otherwise you're just linking to their userpage without them being notified.) Pinged them above now. Thanks for letting me know though! Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, was this a change? I seem to remember a user setting where you could turn this off, but I thought it was the default, hence the {{noping}} template. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Regardless of page views, the book and film have equal cultural importance (film would not exist without book, interest in book would not exist without film). Both have equal weight to be the primary target of "Princess Bride", so it is better to disambiguate them. --Masem (t) 15:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would just be confusing to put the movie first when the book came first._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on ideological grounds who staunchly believes, personally, against much of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and who would prefer to see the disambiguation page occupy the page without the parenthetical qualifer. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The film article gets 85% of pageviews, and has greater (or at least no less than equal) long-term significance as well. In addition, the disambiguation page gets too high a percentage of views (over 3%, or around 20% of how many the novel page gets). That indicates that we are not directing our readership as efficiently as we could. Dohn joe (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Dohn joe above and also disagree that because the film came from the book they have equal cultural importance; is the Jaws novel as culturally significant and impactful as the film? (An admittedly bad example, since it's a common noun and obviously a disambig page) I would say no to both, the novels are the source material, but not the proximate cause of the interest in the film. Unlike, say Harry Potter or LOTR films & books, in which the novels were bonafide sensations that the films only added to, not supplanted. JesseRafe (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this move, no primary 2601:541:4500:1760:4802:686B:4A80:59EE (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leave well enough alone. -- 109.79.171.15 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Normally I oppose making a film primary over the book on which it's based, but in this instance the film is so much more famous and culturally significant than the book that I think it's justified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2019 (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.

Simple

An article on this subject in simple English is also available.

Editors might find it interesting to also edit the version of this article in the Simple English Wikipedia.

Keep it simple, start by reading How to write Simple English pages . Not many good example articles I can point too but the article for simple:Toy_Story is an example of a detailed article with simplified text.

Give it a try. Have fun. -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

#PrincessBrideReunion

The livestreamed table read on September 13, 2020 is now included both in the Legacy section and in the Adaptations section. I think it is better suited to Adaptations, where I am going to try to move all of this material. If you disagree, let's discuss and improve. (AV Club has a link to YouTube of the whole thing, warts and all.) HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say adaption, like the Home Movie thing. (I think I put the Adaption bit in there). --Masem (t) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it, Masem. I did my coagulation there now, so check if it needs improvement. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of RS coverage for this, both leading up to it and afterward. I am going to start working on a standalone article for it (similar to what we have for the Princess Bride home movie) in my Sandbox, anybody else with reference URLs or ideas to add, please join in. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think it can be standalone, particularly with lack of "Production" info (where we had that for the Home Movie thing). --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In this case, the "production" would be the lead-up to the event, which was widely discussed and even featured a cameo by Ted Cruz. I see too much SIGCOV to jam into a section of the movie article. I am enjoying working on it, love to have your input at Draft:HouseOfChange/Princess_Bride_Reunion. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess given that it was also a political fundraiser it got some additional attention too. So that would be fair. A possibility may be to have a "Adaptions of The Princess Bride" page that would include both the Home Movie and this live reading if someone else pokes at the notability issues (as you are right on the size factor) but that's a issue for later. --Masem (t) 14:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just created the article Princess Bride Reunion (2020). This event was notable per QP:BASIC, with SIGCOV both beforehand and afterward (including reviews in The New Yorker and Rolling Stone). As with Reitman's tribute, there's just too much SIGCOV to fit into a paragraph or two of the article about the movie. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Plot Summary Dispute

Hi. There is a dispute about this diff.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1014895486&oldid=1014888516&title=The_Princess_Bride_(film) This is the place to discuss. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your claim on my "Talk" page that that the way I changed the opening sentence (of the second paragraph) indicated the plot summary made it 'about' Florin and not Buttercup' was incorrect nor did it ever read that way, though I made changes to it to it and you still reverted it. The story is about Buttercup AND Westley (not just Buttercup, as you also claimed). I changed it to first identify the story's setting, then introduced Buttercup "by her name" as a character as she was not even mentioned at all in that paragraph (you've since added her name). It simply reads better the revised way, rather than the other choppy, wordy sentence structure containing a long string of phrases of: "a beautiful young woman" and "who lives on a farm" and "in the fictional kingdom of . . ." It just clunks along and there was NO mention at all of Buttercup's name in the entire first paragraph! It is only "a beautiful young woman," or "her" or "she." Sorry, but your argument, stated on my Talk page, that it made it sound like the summary was about Florin, is unconvincing. Buttercup is also too young to be referred to as a "woman". I had changed it to "girl" but "maiden," is the more the familiar term for a young, unmarried female in this type of time period. An older female would be referred to as a "woman." I always welcome others adding to my work, pointing out any errors or inconsistencies, smoothing rough edges, etc, but not reverting it in retaliation. I also removed "extremely" from the "extremely debilitated" as it's just extra fluff, (Many famous and other professional writers will tell you to 'kill adverbs!') I also don't think three people breaking into the castle is "storming" which implies an entire army swarming it. I particularly don't understand why you are bothered that I made minor changes to MY previous version (as you pointed out). I made some modifications based on some of your comments, but you reverted that as well. By just reverting all changes indicates an attempt at an edit war.PNW Raven (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

First, thanks for discussing. Secondly, it's important we focus on the content, not the editor. I agree that Buttercup's name should be there. It now is. Here is the opening sentence.

The tale is about a beautiful young woman who lives on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin.

That's fine but, as agreed, she should be named. That said, we should honour this diff.

The edit I reverted read:

The tale is set in a fictional kingdom called Florin where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives on a farm.

First. this is a plot summary, so to change it from what it's about to where it's set seems very odd. It reads as if Florin is central to the plot, rather than the young woman. It also contains two grammatical errors. As it stands we have a defining relative clause first, meaning in order to understand what 'a fictional kingdom called Florin' is (hint-it's a fictional kingdom called Florin), we need to know that it's 'where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives'. I also don't like the second, non-defining relative clause ('where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives') as it suggests there's only one beautiful young maiden. I'd rather that were defining (i.e. where the beautiful young maiden Buttercup lives).

Anyway, I am firmly of the view that this (particularly if her name's included and followed by a non-defining relative clause- as she's now defined by her having been named):

The tale is about a beautiful young woman who lives on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin. or

The tale is about a beautiful young woman named Buttercup, who lives on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin.

Is better than this:

The tale is set in a fictional kingdom called Florin where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives on a farm.

I can't see any circumstances in which the latter is better than the two former. That said, I'd be interested to hear from any other editors.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If I had written "The tale is "about" a fictional kingdom . . ." then your argument would hold some water. However, I wrote that it is "set" in Florin where Buttercup lives. The entire summary is then about her and Westley. No one would infer from those words in the first sentence that the summary is about the kingdom. That is a huge stretch of logic.PNW Raven (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a huge stretch of logic to start a plot summary that says what it's about though, is it? You're right, the entire summary is about her and Westley. Florin isn't nearly as relevant. Given the film's title, however, and the film itself, Buttercup seems the logical place to start.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove Buttercup's name from the first paragraph? Once again, there is nothing to identify who "she" is. There is no connection to the second paragraph that the Buttercup mentioned there is her. If Buttercup is the logical place to start, then maybe stating her name is important. I have readded it.PNW Raven (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't. Out of respect for the process I reverted myself in order to ensure that we're starting from the same diff. I made that clear in the edit summary. We haven't got to maiden yet, so I'll restore to the version that this discussion is based on.

Maiden is antiquated language and there's absolutely nothing to be said for attempts to echo romantic language.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's very important that we discuss the diff without editing the article and we should commit to that.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Buttercup's name must be included in the first paragraph. What more discussion is needed that it is appropriate to identify the main character early on. "Maiden" is a term suitable to the story's time setting and describes a young, unmarried virgin. I have stated my reasons for making other changes. You do not "discuss." You ignore any reason I give and just revert as a way to prevent any change being made. Please discuss and justify keeping "storm" the castle, when that is an inaccurate description. Please defend keeping "extremely" debilitated when it is a useless adverb. Please explain keeping the clunky sentence structure of the paragraph's first sentence, which I streamlined for a better flow and restructured it to avoid a challenge of it being a "defining relative clause." I changed it to:

The tale is about Buttercup, a beautiful young maiden living on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin.

You still reverted it. I specifically pointed out how choppy the original sentence was. Please also give a reason for removing Westley challenging Humperdinck before he and Buttercup leave the castle. I had changed it after you pointed out an error about them not dueling, then you removed my revised text. You cannot just say you object without giving a reasonable reason for something not to be changed just to stop the process.PNW Raven (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To be crystal clear, this conversation is about the diff at the top of it. If we change it, it moves the goalposts of the discussion. We'll get to the rest of it and we have time. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't use inverted commas around well-known grammatical language.

No one says maiden anymore. Modern articles don't mimic the language used in the piece. We don't talk about mountebanks in Ben Jonson plays. Other than that it's fine. I'd be happy with:

The tale is about Buttercup, a beautiful young woman living on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin. NEDOCHAN (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please could I ask you not to edit your responses in this discussion? The same standards don't apply to talk pages as articles, but if you change your own posts after publishing then it stilts the conversation and messes with the replies.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Great. The next one is:

The man in black finds and confronts the outlaws atop the Cliffs of Insanity. or

The man in black finds the outlaws atop the Cliffs of Insanity.

I don't really like either of these, as to say he finds them suggests they were hidden, which they weren't. I think 'catches' would be better. But I definitely think the confrontations are part of the story. He doesn't really find them and he does very much confront them.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer: The man in black confronts the outlaws atop the Cliffs of Insanity.

I will try to limit my edits, but if I feel something I wrote could be misinterpreted or is incomplete, then I will edit it for clarity.PNW Raven (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"I do not think that means what you think it means" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I do not think that means what you think it means and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#I do not think that means what you think it means until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Fezzik (nationality)

I don't edit regularly and respect the way this entry is so thoughtfully edited, so I didn't make this change - but under "Plot", when introducing the three outlaws, it's mentioned that Fezzik is from Greenland. While Greenland is the place where he was found by Vizzini after he was left, unemployed, by his circus troupe, Fezzik is a Turk. He was born to Turkish parents and spent his childhood in Turkey, only joining the traveling circus as an adolescent when his parents died. Should this sentence be changed? Seeinstaz (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Count Rugen the vizir?

The plot description mentions Count Rugen as Prince Humperdinck's sadistic vizir. Is this in the book? In the movie, I took him to be Humperdinck's henchman. J S Ayer (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the notification - changed the plot to edit out the Vizier title since it doesn't matter if its listed in the book - this page is about the movie. Ckruschke (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke