Jump to content

Talk:Rope and Breasts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other film

[edit]

Information on the other film of the same title is sourced and mentioned in conjunction with this film by Jasper Sharp. Why is it being removed here? Dekkappai (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote part of what I removed: Jasper Sharp writes that the only connection between the two films seems to be that they both feature "a lot of rope and a lot of breasts." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the other film is borderline notable. Gets a review in the Weisser book, written by Oniroku Dan, a notable author in the genre, and gets mentioned in connection with this film in the Sharp book. Not enough info on it, I don't think, to start a separate article, so I put it here, since Sharp connects the two. Perhaps input from others would help? Dekkappai (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the similarly titled film is probably not relevant and the connection is trivial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is made by at least one reliable source. I'll check the Weisser later. I think we're an an impasse here, so I'll seek further input. Dekkappai (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no where else to put the other film? Is the filmmaker responsible not notable enough for their own page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bignole. The filmmaker is borderline notable, and the film is his most notable. I figured if info on the filmmaker and this film was going to go anywhere, this is where it should go-- unless more sourcing on either one popped up eventually. Since Sharp-- a reliable source-- made the connection between the two, I put it here. Dekkappai (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Weisser source-- the other main English-language reference on pink film-- and it has a footnote under the listing for this film, "(1)This film has no relationship to Shintaro Kishi's 1967 movie by the same name." So... I leave it up to the discussion... Dekkappai (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct is to say that it shouldn't be covered in such depth. If someone is stating there is a connection, then stating what the person says is all that we need. We don't need to know what the other film is about and its whole history because by technicality it's not "really" connected (i.e., there is no intention connection and no real controversy over it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I was "merging" an article before it had been started and AfD'ed, basically. I supposed we could start the article on the other film with as much info as we have. Someone could put it up for AfD, it could be recommended there that the info be merged here, etc. Or would perhaps just a passing mention of it-- as in both the Sharp and Weisser texts-- be appropriate? Something like: "This film is unrelated to the one of the same title scripted by Oniroku Dan and directed by the early pink film SM-specialist Shintarō Kishi at Yamabe Pro and distributed by Kantō in 1967."? Oh-- this is apparently Oniroku Dan's first screen credit, which ought to confer a little more "notability", though still not enough for a stand-alone article, I don't think. Would be nice to be able to fit that into the sentence. If mention of the other film is allowed, that is. Dekkappai (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the creation of an article for the second film, those AFDs have been unsuccessful.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a project committed to covering world cinema in a non-biased and encyclopedic manner, an article on that film would be perfectly appropriate. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not currently seem to be such a project, preferring to mold its content to editor-created definitions of "notability", with all the subjectivity that implies. Dekkappai (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rope and Breasts. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rope_and_Breasts&oldid=1210117083"