Talk:The Adventures of Pinocchio

message: The plot synopses appears to have been written by somebody with very poor English. I don't want to be offensive, or complain...obviously somebody is taking time out of their life to contribute for free and that's good, but this is almost completely unreadable. Somebody with knowledge of the original story needs to edit this so it can be understood.98.210.88.228 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs editing desperately

message: :"Unless an article is very short, it should start with a lead section comprising one or more introductory paragraphs. The lead should not be explicitly entitled == Introduction == or any equivalent header." Wikipedia:Guide to layout
See also Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:The perfect article.  In each case the point is repeated: articles start with the summary — not with a picture, or a heading, or a quotation, but with a summary.  This is important not merely for consistency (though that's important), but because the reading software used by blind and impaired users can hit problems when a page starts with anything else. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: would be great if the actual content of Pinocchio could be added by someone who read it. Phelixxx 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And better still to understand the psychological drive behind such a tale . —Cesar Tort 22:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot 

message: I'd prefer to keep this article about the novel and original character - there must be hundreds (thousands?) of derivative pinocchio's.  -- Stbalbach 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually why I'd prefer to merge them.  I'd rather have a footnote to the original article to acknowledge derivative characters than have a whole WP entry for every one of them. -- Tim Pierce 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically with classic novels that have many derivatives, there is a separate section or article listing the derivatives (*XYZ in popular culture.."), and each of those derivatives can also optionally have its own article. See Frankenstein or Dracula for example. This article is about the novel, not Shrek, so if Pinocchio (Shrek) should be merged, it should be merged to Shrek. However, there is also nothing wrong with separate articles for characters, so I suspect the Shrek people will also say its fine to keep it as a separate article. Long story short, Pinocchio (Shrek) is probably fine un-merged as it is, with a link to it from this articles "popular culture" section. -- Stbalbach 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good point -- thanks for explaining it that way.  I agree and will bring it up with the Shrek crowd, even though you're probably right that they will feel similarly. :-) Tim Pierce 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: An alternative would be to separate Pinocchio (novel) from Pinocchio the character, focusing on the story and supporting characters in the former, and the character (in all his variations) in the latter.  It's working pretty well so far for Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up and Peter Pan.  - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Pinocchio (Shrek)]]

message: I found the list of derivative works had become rather cluttered, with full-scale adaptations of the original story mixed up with places where one or more characters from the story inspire some aspect of another work altogether (see also the discussion above about derivative characters). To try to clear this up, I've made a section called Adaptations for works that, to a greater or lesser extent, actually render some significant part of the original story in a new form (films, operas, translations/retellings). Then I've made a subsection for Derivative works to include various character-based spin-offs where Pinocchio is still the principal theme ('Pinocchio in outer space', and the like), and another subsection for Other references to Pinocchio in popular culture for all the places where some tangential reference is made (eg, Pinocchio appearing in the 'Shrek' films, computer game characters references, manga, etc). I hope this helps with clarity. I am not sure which section every reference belongs in, so I've done my best but one or two may need moving if appropriate. Mooncow (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivative works 

message: I see that there are pronunciation guides in English and Italian.
Should Florentine ones be added?
The Italian text is peppered with Florentine terms so it would be natural to pronounce it alla Fiorentina.
--Error (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuscan

message: Take this Lord of the Rings box as an example...
Dont you all think the articles on the characters and various film adaptations need something like this?Dark hyena (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinocchio related articles need "infoboxes" 

message: The image :Image:Gatto e volpe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the illustrator died in 1910, no fair-use claim has to be made. I’ve edited the image page and specified the license as . Ian Spackman (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Gatto e volpe.jpg

message: Alidoro was linked to the "mastiff" disambig page. I changed it to  mastiff . In the original Italian version it says "del can mastino" which is translated as "the mastiff" in English... So it doesn't really tell what kind of mastiff he is since in English a "mastiff" is generally regarded as the English Mastiff, but a "mastino" in Italian is generally regarded as a Neapolitan Mastiff... the Cane da Presa Meridionale page has a bit more information on the fans of the old mastino. (Just an explanation for why I changed it) cReep (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig

message: I consider the comparison to Alice and Grimms' not correct. If Alice is a "fairy tale" to be contrasted with the "real life" fetures of Pinocchio - Grimms tales are on both sides. You have deep and hard realism in a lot of Grimms tales (Hänsel und Gretel; Der alte Großvater und der Enkel and many more). Kipala (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison to Grimm

message: Hi, everyone. Seeing as there isn't really much information on the character's page that isn't better suited to the article about the book, and there doesn't seem to me much scholarship about Pinocchio as a character that is separate from the book, I think it makes sense to move the stub from Pinocchio here. Thoughts? — Bdb484 (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I think there is a lack of effort to find independent sources which must be available about an iconic character. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Pinocchio is a very short stub, ranked of low importance. Anything that needs to be said can be covered in the book article.  If and when sufficient information accrues to warrant it, it might be spun off, but for now a separate article serves no particular purpose. Mannanan51 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say we should at least expand the article even with the popular culture information. Any objections? Rtkat3 (talk) 9:45, September 24 2012 (UTC)
*Oppose - A character like Pinocchio? Really? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger from [[Pinocchio]] 

message: I tried to trim the plot summary as much as I could, but the nature of the story makes it difficult.  The characters have no inner life, and so the entire book is basically just a straightforward recounting of one misadventure after another.
64.181.114.4 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimmed plot description 

message: That makes it the most translated and read non-religious book of all times. This sentence in the introduction is wrong, since the reference it is based on says that it is the most translated and most read Italian book of all times. Nothing proves that The Adventures of Pinocchio was more translated than The Little Prince. --TheLazyDog (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Most of all times' claims 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Collodi Pinocchio.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion