Talk:The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

message: Nearly all sources, including film reviews, interviews with the film's participants, reference books, advertising materials, etc., call Roger Corman's film "The Pit and the Pendulum".  IMDB, MRQE, All Movie Guide, Video Watchdog, and DVD Savant, on the other hand, have noted that the onscreen title is, in fact, Pit and the Pendulum (no initial "the"), and reference the film in that manner.    I believe that English-language Wikipedia film articles should utilize the film's most commonly known English-language title, which, in this case, is clearly The Pit and the Pendulum.  Most people would search for that title and shouldn't have to go thru a re-direct page to get to the article.  I've recently reverted another editor's attempt at re-naming the article.  Any such move should be discussed here first.  If others agree that the film's onscreen title should have precedence over the film's more commonly used title, then the move should be made.  What do others think?-Hal Raglan 03:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not arbritarily rename/move this article without discussing the issue here on the talk page.  Explaining your reasoning in full would be greatly appreciated.-Hal Raglan 21:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now provided a compromise in the lead paragraph of the article, by inserting (also known as Pit and the Pendulum) after the title followed by a citation.  This should certainly suffice.  If not, please discuss.-Hal Raglan 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct title of the film

message: :Image:PitCap.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PitCap.jpg

message: A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments against inclusion in the above noted discussion were persuasive.  I've removed the image.Hal Raglan (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: Why the extra spacing above and below the two templates under the External links section? There is a note requesting that the spacing be left alone. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324104622/http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1961/the-pit-and-the-pendulum/ to http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1961/the-pit-and-the-pendulum/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101065513/http://cinebeats.blogsome.com/2006/05/06/ to http://cinebeats.blogsome.com/2006/05/06/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've flagged the following passage as dubious.
:He also used elements from other Poe stories, such as the unfaithful wife from "The Cask of Amontillado"...
"The Cask of Amontillado" does not contain any such element, as reading the story or the linked article about the story will show. Without knowing what story was actually meant or what story is actually named in the cited source, I cannot correct this error. Canonblack (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no unfaithful wife in "Cask", but the unfaithful wife of the father in this film winds up with the same fate as the victim in that story: walled up while alive behind masonry in a wine cellar. That's the only element that this fil takes from "Cask". oknazevad (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement 

message: Another 2007 FA promotion that wouldn't be considered even B-class in 2021. Multiple problems
*This article looks massively in-comprehensive for a topic of a horror film starring the legend of horror himself, Vincent Price, and being one of the most influential because of it.
*No representation from scholarly literature.
*This is too much of a dependence on quotes that could be paraphrased
*Uncited statements like "The Pit and the Pendulum was announced in August 1960, and filming began the first week of January 1961."
*The box office section is very lacking, only showing a number and a couple of sentences about records.
*Critical reception section is a quotefarm.
*Ref 2, in addition to being a bare URL, is of a questionable source.
*Ref 42 is a self-written blog.
👨x🐱 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article in need of review