Talk:The Shining (film)

Categories

I think several changes need to be made. Someone suggested Category:Films about alcoholism and that seems valid. While not as strong as King's story, it still exists in the film. Many refer to Jack as a "recovering alcoholic", including this article. Here is an essay which brings up other points about alcoholism in the movie. Category:Films shot in California should be removed unless someone knows what was shot. Category:Familicide in fiction should be added and maybe replace Category:Uxoricide in fiction and Category:Filicide in fiction. Should Category:Patricide_in_fiction] be added? Did Danny kill his father?

Overall writing and Two Gradys section

Just tried to read this article from start to finish. As if it was an encyclopaedia article. When was the last time this was looked at in toto? There are so many needless repetitions yet also many needed clarifications.

One example of the latter occurs in the Two Gradys section:

>>The film's assistant editor Gordon Stainforth has commented on this issue, attempting to steer a course between the continuity-error explanation on one side and the hidden-meaning explanation on the other

The continuity-error explanation? I can guess what this might refer to but it is nowhere explained.

Perhaps someone might like to have a go at overhauling the prose before this article collapses under the weight of everyone adding their own favourite notion, irrespective of whether it makes sense or has in fact already been said.

Shelley Duvall's rescinded Razzie Award

It's very clear from the word "rescinded" in the table that the award was rescinded. There's no need to strike that entry as it is confusing and redundant. There is no precedent for this on Wikipedia. 76.49.117.21 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you are trying to twist what I have written in a negative direction in your replies, I will not spend much time in this discussion. You won't get what you want. I'm taking the page back to WP:STATUSQUO. Before you, 6 different users were already undoing each other's edits. ภץאคгöร 07:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course you will not spend time in this discussion because you don't have a case to argue, and lying about how many users have reverted you doesn't help your case (which is a grand total of one because all of the dynamic IPs are from one location -- do a Geolocate to confirm). Trying to get your way with subterfuge (making a false protection report, lying, citing policies that don't support your edit) is not how things are done on Wikipedia. This has been challenged, and so far you are the only editor supporting your edit. You are required to get consensus, per WP:BRD which you yourself cited. 2002:4C31:7515:1234:B0F6:AD44:1702:E42B (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You're desperately trying to get attention from me with your embarrassing accusations. Touch some grass. ภץאคгöร 19:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why, "Won (Later Rescinded)" can't be used in an instance like this? It's been used at List of awards and nominations received by Bruce Willis and seems reasonably clear. If there's a problem with that article as well, perhaps we need a broader consensus on how rescinded Razzies should be addressed? DonIago (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Doniago. Your suggestion is the way it should be done, and that basically is how it's already done in the article. No need for striking through the name of the award, which is confusing and redundant. 2002:4C31:7515:1234:B0F6:AD44:1702:E42B (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, if there was a broader consensus that striking out the award or deleting it, or any other action, was appropriate, I would support any of those options. But what I'm seeing right now is an argument between two editors about how to handle this without any reference to P&G or existing precedent. It took me all of two minutes to find an existing precedent that also seems like a reasonable solution, unless there are concerns I'm unaware of. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

DonIago, I agree with you completely. There is no precedent, and there is no consensus for striking the name of the award. A consensus for the strikethrough is needed, and I would support any clear consensus for this and all articles. 2002:4C31:7515:1234:B0F6:AD44:1702:E42B (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Charles vs Delbert?

I haven’t seen The Shining so I don’t want to correct this, but the naming seems inconsistent in the plot section. Is the former caretaker named Charles (the name introduced in the section) or Delbert, (the name of the ghost)? Also, it’s confusing to refer to the character just as “Grady.” As someone unfamiliar with the movie, I couldn’t follow the Grady’s as written in the plot. 67.81.35.157 (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a section in the article that addresses this point. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

237 and Dr. Strangelove

I removed a claim that Kubrick re-used the number 237 from Dr. Strangelove for being directly copied from the cited source, which looked to be rather low-quality anyway. The code for Wing Attack Plan R in Dr. Strangelove was actually FGD 135. This can be seen about 7 and a half minutes into the movie, or in the screenshot we use to illustrate our article on the CRM-114. The next message that the B-52 receives, visible at about 17:40, is MDD 808 (presumably this is the confirmation of the original order). XOR'easter (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)