|
I changed most of these titles back from "Stephen King/*" to "*" because most of the titles are distinctive enough that they don't need any further clarification, and having to type the "Stephen King/" bit to link to them is cumbersome. I did leave "Carrie" as "[Stephen King/Carrie]?" because of the novel by Theodor Dreiser by the same name; I also left "Danse Macabre" further clarified because of the actual dance. "The Shining" does not need to be further clarified because the term is one Stephen King made up himself, and the movie is of course based on the book, with insufficient variation (IMHO) to warrant separate entries. Of course someone later can come in and prove me wrong with two detailed entries. "Stand By Me" is "[Rob Reiner/Stand by Me]?" because of the song by Ben E. King which the movie gets its title from. I have put in a number of write-ups for his novels as subpages to Stephen King, and will continue to do so. Putting some of them as subpages and some outside seems very stupid. The books are clearly by King, so they're not a problem. The films could be listed separately if desired, since they're not the creation of one person. I haven't written about any of the films at any length, though. --Pinkunicorn :"Putting some of them as subpages and some outside seems very stupid." Well then, that's neither the first nor the last stupid idea I've had. I don't think there's any argument that the novels are by Stephen King; my point was that most have distinctive enough titles that it's not necessary to make them subpages, especially since most of them have also penetrated the culture enough that further identification is not necessary (for instance, Cujo, The Shining, The Stand, etc.) I took exception with Carrie, as I said, because of the Dreiser novel. I imagine you must want to make The Taming of the Shrew a subpage of William Shakespeare. :-) --KQ If I did the Shakespeare pages from scratch I probably would, yes. Someone would surely put up redirects all over the place for me. ;-) I promise I won't be moving any Shakespeare stuff around, though. For King, I think there are interesting things to say about the film versions as compared to the novels, so having a separate set of pages for the films is good. There tends to be differences in plot (perhaps this problem is smaller with Shakespeare). Also, the films are made by lots and lots of people so it's not as obvious what person/entity to put it under. Perhaps the director? Perhaps the screenwriter? Perhaps the author of the novel it is based on (if there is one)? *Titles of films is generally going to be a problem. Year doesn't always work because sometimes two movies come out the same year with the same title, different directors, and entirely different plots. I'll have to look for examples later; I've run across plenty while searching for something on IMDb. Listing the director will usually help, for instance The Fugitive (John Ford) vs. The Fugitive (Andrew Davis); but then not always, for instance (and this is uncommon) The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alfred Hitchcock) vs. The Man Who Knew Too Much (Alfred Hitchcock). Anyway, I would say the best bet is to differentiate by director, not year, since the director does usually have the most say about what does and does not make it into the film--though there are of course exceptions, for instance when the director does not have [final cut]? and the studio, convinced it has a turkey on its hands, steps in to blandify the script as much as possible, insert generic sex scenes and a pat happy ending, maybe a few explosions, etc. Various wikipedians could write probably 30 pages on this phenomenon in re: Brazil (Terry Gilliam) and Dune (David Lynch). (Unrelated: KQ, when you add content, why do you flag it as a minor edit so it doesn't show up in the changes list? I just found this by accident.) *bad habit. To me, minor edit is usually anything short of a new topic or complete rewrite, though I'm trying to make it a habit to leave the box alone any time I add more than ten lines of content. --KQ |
|
|
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)