Talk:The Shining (film)

Shelley Duvall's rescinded Razzie Award

It's very clear from the word "rescinded" in the table that the award was rescinded.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Is there a reason why, "Won (Later Rescinded)" can't be used in an instance like this?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 If there's a problem with that article as well, perhaps we need a broader consensus on how rescinded Razzies should be addressed?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)

Production section

I used to read this article a while back. It seems now that edits in recent years have made the production section of this article have turned it from reasonably well written to nearly incomprehensible and all over the place. While the rest of the article does need to be refined, the production section is one of the more glaring issues I have seen in terms of flow and structure. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that positive change will occur if you can suggest improvements rather than simply criticizng the current state. DonIago (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's one suggestion for improving the article: undo every change that's been made since about 2015 or so. danzig138 (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The production section just needs things rearranged and expanded with things going into appropriate subsections. A template for a possible structure is as follows:--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Main section: Production
• Sub-sections:
  • Development- Brief background on book, with most information going into development of the film prior to the screenplay.
  • Writing- Any information pertaining to the screenplay (Considering it was rewritten during shooting, that can be added to filming when necessary).
  • Casting- Any info on Casting.
  • Filming- Filming locations, things that happened during principle photography and the like.
  • Design- Special effects, and makeup/production design.