Talk:Reservoir Dogs

message: The introduction to this article is far too long and definetly needs to be shortened. Your thoughts?
:: Removing the paragraph about Keitel's involvement as a producer and perhaps moving it down to the Trivia section would be my first recommendation. Of course, that would also entail re-naming the Trivia section once again... Keiran Horn 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Should this section be put in a wikitable?
::Is the section even necessary? Keiran Horn 07:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Characters Fates section

message: I think it's intentionally left open as to whether he survives. In the final 3 minutes of the film, just before the police burst in on White and Orange, you hear a lot of yelling and some (possible) gunshots. I always intepret that as Mr. Pink being killed by the police task force just outside the warehouse.
:I agree. After the shooting, Pink goes out the door. White then slowly creeps over to Orange, and we hear sirens all the time, suggesting that the police are still arriving. That'd give Pink time to get away. --Spug 00:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to disagree, but I'm not brave enough to change the article just yet. According to the IMDb trivia page for this movie, Quentin Tarantino himself has said that Mr. Pink does survive. I know that the IMDb isn't always reliable, but when I watched the ending, I though that I could definitely hear the sound of Mr. Pink surrendering and being arrested. Cswrye 20:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
If the audio track of this scene is fiddled with, Mr Pink does say "I give up" after the shots have been fired by the police. Look at the "What happened to Mr. Pink?" link. JustADuck 02:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur... I've listened to the audio of that scene several times and Mr. Pink's voice can definitely be heard saying something to the effect of "I give up" after the shots have been fire. BinaryTed 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Pink (POSSIBLE SPOILER)

message: I remember there being a line about dogs, but where does the reservoir come from?
:This question is answered directly in the article, just above the table of contents. - Corix 22:05, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
::No, it isn't. It appears to have been removed. - AWF
Hmmm. The whole au revoir/straw dogs thing sounds fishy to me. I distinctly remember back when this film came out reading an interview with QT (can't remember where) in which he explained the title: He said that near where he grew up there was a disused/dried up reservoir which was home to a motley pack of stray dogs. As a kid Tarantino used to watch these mean scrappy mean-looking animals hanging out and interacting, foraging, etc - the behaviour of the group of dogs included frequent snarling standoffs and occasional outbursts of violence, sometimes ending with one of the dogs dead at the hands (paws?) of the others. In the interview QT said that when writing the script the group dynamics of the characters reminded him of the pack of dogs he saw as a kid. Made sense to me.SidneyStratton 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the reference until a justified answer can be found.Keiran Horn 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added to the article that the origin and meaning of the film title is unclear. Maikel 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Until a decision is made about the proper way to phrase it, I will edit out the current wording in the article. Any suggestion here would be appreciated. Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this film called Reservoir Dogs? 

message: The Analysis section seems to me to be unencyclopedic and in violation of wikipedia's no original research policy.  I'd argue it should be removed, maybe with an external link or two in its place (ie source-based research).  As it stands, it's mostly one person's interpretation of the film. --Misterwindupbird 18:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: Someone should explain what the "background radio play" is. Is there a transcript available? Where does it appear in the film? AaronSw 02:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background radio play 

message: joe says this about one of the other characters...mr blue i believe. i think that should go under misc facts seeing as lawrence tierney played dillinger, if somebody can confirm which character it is
-Lordraydens 06:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Joe says it about Mr. Blue, right before the shootout.2600:6C50:800:2787:8CBE:D8EE:1A53:3C35 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead as Dillinger 

message: There are three men yes, but two are pointing at one. I think in order for it to be a mexican standoff it would have to be eqaul.
So you're saying that it would be a Mexican standoff if it were A>B>C>A? --Averross 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know "Mexican standoff" or not, but I just watched it several times, including several in slow motion, and first of all, two are not pointing at one.  Joe is pointing at Orange; White is pointing at Joe; Joe's son is pointing at White.  In slow motion, you can see the shots (smoke columns) and they're in sequence.  They're arguing and threatening, the son says something to the effect that "I'll blow your head off if you don't stop pointing that gun at my dad", and 1) Joe shoots Orange 2) White shoots Joe 3)Joe's son shoots White 4)White shoots Joe's son.  Joe's mistake was shooting Orange, who was unarmed, first; he should have shot White first and either he, his son or both might have gotten out alive.2600:6C50:800:2787:8CBE:D8EE:1A53:3C35 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Joe's son says "Larry, stop pointing that fucking gun at my dad", then it's like I said, except it looks like the son and White each get off one more shot after all that, before they all fall down.2600:6C50:800:2787:8CBE:D8EE:1A53:3C35 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it really a [[mexican standoff]]?

message: If the article on Vic Vega is redundent then the article on Vincent is redundent as well.  I'm going to ask user:Rklawton not to leave me messages charging me with vandalism.  It is nothing of the sort.  The fact that Wikipedia allows an article on Vincent is proof enough! --SacredVisions 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundent?

message: Someone sure loves going into excruciating plot detail on Tarantino articles. Most of the plot section should be removed, it's practically screenplay-length. Chris Cunningham 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't getting any better. I'm planning on axing a lot of this. Chris Cunningham 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still getting no better. Bah. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cleanup tag 

message: In the trivia section - where did the real names for Misters Pink, Blue, Brown come from? They certainly don't appear in the film. 96T 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: I saw an interview with QT (either on the resevoir dogs or pulp fiction dvd) where he said that he hates the term 'flashback' being used of his work. The scenes dubbed as 'flashbacks' in this article are more of an example of a broken narrative; Tarantino used the example where if you're reading a novel and a chapter suddenly starts telling of events twenty years in the past, that isnt a flashback, it's just the authors choice of when to relate these particular events. Althopugh the scenes in resevoir dogs are more easy to dub 'flashbacks' than - say - the broken narrrative in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill, the point remains that they arent, and shouldnt be named as such. Maybe change? Just a thought.
:Can you find out which DVD it was on? Dac 23:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flashbacks

message: There is much mention of individual songs used throught the movie, but I feel that a section the detailing released soundtrack should be included, possibly with reference to the Steven Wright KBILLY Super Sounds of the 70's tracks. I believe additional songs that are not included are also mentioned within these tracks. (I would include it, but I unfortunately do not have the soundtrack.)--RedKnight 15:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: One movie borrowing the plot of another isn't an influence on Indian cinema as a whole. I'd want a source for that statement, otherwise it should be changed to simply say that Kaante borrows this movie's plot. CarrerCrytharis 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on Indian cinema? 

message: Hi, I think I've found another reference to Pulp Fiction. While Mr. Orange is telling the "Toilet-Story" to the other guys in the pub, you see a coloured, bald man, back to the camera. He doesn't have a patch on his neck, but it does remind me A LOT to the Pulp fiction scene, where Marcellus Wallace talks to the boxer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.168.188.121 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reservoir Dogs was made before Pulp Fiction.  Wikipedia isn't really the place for that kind of thing anyway.
Also, I've re-watched that scene after reading this post, and nowhere in it does anything remotely similar to what you're saying happened, happen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.232.235 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcellus Wallace 

message: I have changed all of the spellings of Dimmick in reference to Mr. White to Dimick because it is spelled out and written in one of the deleted scenes. Yet in a shoddily produced profiles section on the 15th anniversary DVD, they spell it Dimmick. I would personally sway towards the deleted scene because of the multiple references to the spelling. Billy Bishop 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dimmick or Dimick?

message: Isn't Vic Vega's parole officer named "Scagnetti", and not "Koon"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosmotheoria (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scagnetti 

message: :Image:Reservoirdog.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Reservoirdog.jpg

message: :Image:Reservoirdog.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Reservoirdog.jpg

message: The plot summary in this article is far too long. The problem we have at the moment is that it outlines all the aspects of the movie, pretty much point by point. This could constitute a copyright violation. We need to shorten it considerably - it should be a maximum of 600 - 900 words. I will have a go at doing this at some point, as I did on the xXx article, which suffered from the same problem.-Localzuk(talk) 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot length 

message: Peter Travers' film criticism is usually good and professional, but some of his commentary on the "Reservoir Dogs" anniversary edition DVD is embarrassing and in need of a good editor or fact checker. He seems to believe that the Netherlands is a Scandinavian country (during the scene in which Vinny is telling Jules about Dutch hashish laws). Travers also refers to the band George Baker Selection as Scandinavian (when "Little Green Bag" is heard).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.196.76 (talk) 11:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
Just a suggestion, try not taking Travers' editing to task when you may have similar issues. No scene with Vinny & Jules appears in Reservoir Dogs. Obviously I know you are referring to the Pulp Fiction DVD, but this is unclear from what you actually wrote. Not that I disagree with your thoughts on Travers either, just found it ironic that in criticizing his editing, you made an error. ROG 19 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Commentary Track 

message: Why is there no cast table or list, as in many other film pages. T_sastonTALK PAGE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: While Mr. Orange confesses to Mr. White at the end, Mr. Pink can be overheard being ordered to get out of his car. We then hear gun shots and Mr. Pink saying he's been shot. Judging from that and the description in the DVD of the 10th Anniversary edition it seems to indicate that he died also. - Throw 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tarantino originally intended to begin the film with a caption claiming that "One of these men is a policeman...and all but one will be dead" or something similar. Mr. Pink survived.Vonbontee (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Pink's fate

message: "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." I find it really hard to believe that he actually said that, I think we should either find a source or immediately delete it.--Dominik92 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody stood up for the section, I'm going to delete it.--Dominik92 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: Despite me being unable to hear Mr White pull the trigger as the article currently states (I can hear the report of what may be Mr White's gun as it fires but I don't hear the trigger being pulled) the claim that Mr Orange is dead is unsubstantiated by the film. Mr White's gun looks like it would fire through Mr Orange's brain but the shot is tight on Mr White's face and viewers cannot definitively see Mr White's gun fire. Waerloeg (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the movie could technically be interpreted as Mr. Orange not dying, it is widely accepted  and has been confirmed by Tarantino, and besides isn't it really proof enough that the cops shot Mr. White right after we heard his gun fire?--Dominik92 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dominik92, are you saying that Orange does or doesn't live? I had the impression that White can't bring himself to kill Orange, and the police kill him (White) as he sits stunned. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr White shoots Mr Orange 

message: The amount of categories listed for this movie is just a joke.
The most recent one , 'Films set in California' says it all. I suggest a major clean up of these categories Paul210 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories

message: The section is absolutely ridiculous, I've already deleted about half of it and plan to reduce it to nothing but direct references in major movies. Then either find a source and integrate or delete it.--The Dominator (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey,its not my foult it was such a great film,what do you care if its big,its an enciclopedia its soposed to be big  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it's not a great film. The cultural references section was unsourced. As per Wikipedia policy, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I edited the section down from around thirty references to about eight or ten. I know it's fun looking up trivial details, but just because it's an online encyclopedia, doesn't mean that it should include everything, read some of the wikipedia guideline articles and you'll see that according to policy the entire section would be removed a long time ago.--The Dominator (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: In the mexican stand off two guns are being pointed at one party. There is a single similtaneous gun shot, but all three die.
White shoots Joe, Eddie shoots White.
Either mr pink gets involved or eddie shoots himself? Therefore unnoticed by white pink shoots Eddie. Wolfmankurd (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what all the debate is about? It's pretty obvious, I saw it clearly the first time watching and confirmed in scene by scene, you know it is possible to fire an automatic gun more than once in 2 seconds, in fact I believe that Mr. White might have even got three shots of hitting Eddie twice, but what's significant is that Joe shoots Orange, White shoots Joe, Eddie shoots White, and White shoots again hitting Eddie, this has been confirmed. The Dominator (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three shots are heard but not far apart enough for Mr White to be shot drop turn his gun and shoot again, this is why the debate exists. Whilst there is enough time for Pink to realise that he could just shoot Eddie. Wolfmankurd (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there is a slight choreography error, but it's in the script that White shoots Eddie and I've examined it scene by scene and it happens. The Dominator (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem as if White shoots Eddie, but if you look frame by frame, Eddie starts to fall back as if shot before White fires the second shot. I suspect that was not intentional. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be backing away from gunfire myself.... Lots42 (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who kills who?

message: Can somebody adding where in LA it has been filmed? --Arthur 2045 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming locations 

message: Does anyone know thte name of the song playing in the DVD menu on the 10 year anniversary 1st DVD?Trusko (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Menu 

message: This is hands down my favorite Tarantino film and one of my favorite films of all time, so of course I've been eying this article at GAN for a while. :)  Overall it's very well done; the prose is well written and formatted correctly for the most part; the info seems verifiable and the article itself is stable and neutral.  I have suggestions for improvement before I'm ready to promote it to Good Article status, but I have faith that this can be taken care of easily enough:
Images:
*:Image:Blonde-dogs2.jpg does not have a fair use rationale.I have deleted the separate images from the article because they are unnecesary. I will add a more iconic image, possibly one of Mr. Blonde dancing around to "Stuck in the Middle With You" The DominatorTalkEdits 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I will get to work on it shortly. The DominatorTalkEdits 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far I have completed the edits that you have listed under the plot section, is it better? The DominatorTalkEdits 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  It may be easier for me to keep track of your progress, and for you to know what else needs doing, if you strike out the comments and add  under the bullet points.  Like I said, most of it is pretty minor copy-editing.  María (habla conmigo) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: About your last two suggestions in the "Cast and characters" section, this is from the article Quotation mark: The traditional convention in American English is for commas and periods to be included inside the quotation marks, regardless of whether they are part of the quoted sentence and since this is an American film we follow American spelling and grammar. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Dominik, I should have explained that during the review.  Wikipedia's Manual of Style unfortunately doesn't always meet up with what is readily accepted in the world of academia.  In any other circumstance you'd be perfectly correct.  Wikipedia, however, follows a system called "logical quotation", which is explained at WP:PUNC: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation".  Song titles, for example, do not typically include periods or commas at the end, so the punctuation goes outside the quotation mark.  María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I like that style better anyway, but I always thought that Wikipedia used both, just like with American/British spelling, OK. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, never mind. I should be done by tuesday. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So sorry for not responding sooner, but my RL has been a little hectic as of late.  Take as long as you need, absolutely no rush.  I don't like to enforce a strict seven day On Hold period, so if you need further time, just let me know.  Great work so far! María (habla conmigo) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm done, does it look better? Let me know if you have more concerns. The DominatorTalkEdits 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great; I believe you addressed all of my concerns, so I'm very happy to promote this to GA-status.  Congrats!  Do let me know if you need help with it in the future, say, if FAC is on the horizon. :) María (habla conmigo) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN review 

message: No woman has any dialogue in this movie! At All!
151.203.24.88 (talk)
:And what is your point, exactly? -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that it's weird and someone should write it in the article.96.237.129.203 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And my point is that you need to learn how to spell dialogue properly, and not insult editors personally on a whim. Colds7ream (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the debate is missing the point. Not one person made an argument for inclusion or against it. Personally, I don't think it's that significant and is a rather trivial detail. Yet, I have heard people mention the no female dialogue thing before and think that it's not worth arguing against, if you wish, be bold and add a sentence saying that there is no female speaking role. The DominatorTalkEdits 19:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead and add it. And I'll immediately delete it, since it's completely irreleventVonbontee (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Dialoug 

message: Well i don't think Mr brown was killed by the police, it was just Mr.White who said that because he was fooled by the blood on Mr.Brown's face, recall Orange:'you're not blind you just got blood in your eyes ' he had blood before and then he collapses and it was caused by the shock in the the car  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.255.252 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you saying? That he was killed by the impact? I doubt it- they were going 20 kmh at most. The DominatorTalkEdits 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Find a reliable source discussing that (including other theories such as Mr Pink. shooting Mr White., Mr. Pink being shot by the cops etc.) and maybe we can start something like a "Interpretation" section. Until then, your personal speculation has no place in the article. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately we can't add every theory come up by every fan since the movie was made. Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. This article has been acknowledged as a Good Article and everything is adequately sourced. It is up to the person making the claim to find some back up for it (i.e. a reliable source confirming this speculation, otherwise it is original research). The DominatorTalkEdits 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It doesn't MATTER how many times either of us have watched the movie, because coming to a conclusion based on that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is against OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICY. It is commonly accepted that Mr. Brown was killed because it is stated in the movie, hence it is implied in the article that we are using the movie as a reference and the movie clearly states he is DEAD. Anything to the contrary would have to be confirmed by an outside source. The DominatorTalkEdits 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: His death is clear. It is stated in the film that he is dead, and nothing is ever said to the contrary. If you find reliable sources- interviews with Tarantino, professional critical analysis etc. a section can be created describing different theories about the character's fate. Just because one person develops a theory, doesn't mean we need to include it in the article- that's why WP:OR exists, so a theory is only included/mentioned when a reliable source is provided. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Mr.Brown really killed ? 

message: I would like to change the author names to links in the cast section. When I went to edit it there was a tag indicating the names should not be linked because they had been linked once previously in the article and stated that "redundant overlinking helps nothing."
First I would like to point out that this isn't a hard and fast rule. "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions." (Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links).
Second, rather than helping nothing, I think there are solid reasons to link them. There is a lot of text prior to the cast section and it's cumbersome to try to search back through that text to find the link to a specific actor. It's a new section and the names are bulleted, if you go right to that section it's not necessarily clear that the names are linked previously. But perhaps most importantly, some of the actors listed are linked, because they were not previously mentioned. The effect of having some names linked and others not is to give the impression that the unlinked names either do not have articles or are unimportant and do not warrant articles, which is the opposite of what is actually the case. 
For these reasons, if there isn't something I am missing, I would like to change all the bulleted actors to links to their own pages in order to make the page easier to use and clearer. --Tlosk (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Making links now. --Tlosk (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor Links in the Cast Section 

message: The cast section is crammed full of completely redundant information elsewhere in the article. Lots42 (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed- it's a magnet for every editor who comes by this page to add some useless unsourced piece of trivia. I'm doing my best to try and maintain this article, but film articles really do get a lot of trivia. Go ahead and clean it up if you want, but it's going to go back to its former state in a couple of days unless you vigilantly revert every day. The DominatorTalkEdits 06:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cast Section 

message: One topic that has come to my attention recently is the growing popularity of claims that Reservoir Dogs lifted several scenes and much of the story of the older, more obscure, HK film City of Fire in addition to The Big Combo. It would not be considered a homage as the original movie is hardly known and was poorly received, not to mention that it was never given credit for a homage. Now, regardless of the veracity of these claims, I think a section of the articles should focus on it, as it has been brought to the spotlight by Rotten Tomatoes and others. If you can refute this, please do so.
--69.107.74.100 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? We cannot add a section accusing the movie's producers of plagarism. At least not without SERIOUS citations. Lots42 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several references here that comment on both Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire. It's not an invalid claim. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: City of Fire Connection?

message: Why do you say Ebert "claimed to enjoy the film"? Ebert seems like a critic with integrity. Who are you to imply he lied? He likes Tarantino films. His criticism sounds sincere to me. You should say he "stated that he enjoyed the film" or "said that he enjoyed the film".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt "claimed" is used in a sceptical manner here, it's just another way of saying that he said so, in order to keep the prose fresh. GRAPPLE X 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why insult Ebert? 

message: In Production it refers to Tarantino comparing RD to a novelist. Which novelist? We need to confirm it or give it the axe. ProudHuman42 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a specific novelist, he compares the way the heist is described and not seen to the way a novel writer, not a screenwriter,  would describe an event. GRAPPLE X 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novelist? 

message: Roger Ebert's issue with the film's lack of character exploration is mentioned, but the article cites nothing that might belie this. Specifically, the rather bizarre bonding, perhaps unique in Hollywood crime drama, that we see developing between Mr. White the perp and Mr. Orange the cop. Someone has noted here, no doubt impertinently, the article's failure to discuss Dogs' complete lack of female voices, but could it be that such an absence in the film was rather a "presence of the absence" strategy calculated to heighten the meek, intimate, and, in the final analysis, even feminine dependency of Mr. Orange upon Mr. White? Orthotox (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Development

message: The only reason that this film grossed so much money at the box office in the UK was because it was banned from video release, ergo the only way to go and see it was at the cinema.
I'm personally convinced that had it not been for this ban, the film would've disappeared without trace and Tarantino wouldn't have been the name he is today.
He should thank the BBFC for that. Seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_the_United_Kingdom
80.218.211.54 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but how do you want to incorporate that into the article? That's a bit objective to say that you're personally convinced. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 19:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK video release ban 

message: The word 'apparently' is confusing me. Either something happened or it did not happen. 'Guessing' shouldn't be here. Were there sounds? Were there gunshots? State what can be verified. I would, but I forgot the vital information. Lots42 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last sentence in the plot section 

message: We used to have a citation for black comedy, which I think came from QT himself in an interview.  Regardless, I'd think maybe if we settled on something basic for the lead, like "crime thriller", that'd be fine.  I don't think we need any more than that to identify the film.  The other stuff, such as neo-noir elements and black comedy, can be described outside the opening sentence.  The genre tends to get really cluttered with tangential cruft in postmodern films.  Something like this chapter of The Philosophy of Neo-Noir would be a good source to use to describe how the film uses postmodernism to blend genres.  Or I guess it could go in the critical analysis section if people don't like the idea of themes and genres in the lead.  Honestly, I think this article could be expanded quite a lot if someone were willing to do the work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre in lead 

message: Here is the box office list as it currently is in the infobox.
$2,832,029 (USA)
£6,306,205 (UK)
AUD 767,176 (Australia)
$350,000 (Germany)
€23,500 (Italy) ( 2012)
ESP 89,354,518 (Spain)
SEK 11,583,795 (Sweden)
Worldwide box office:
US dollar total here.
Reference: . International box office.
It might be useful to convert the box office numbers by country to US dollars in 1993. And then add the total below the countries. See bold "Worldwide box office" above. I found a currency converter that can do that here: 
*Currency converter in the past with official exchange rates from 1953.
It is not considered original research. See WP:CALC.
"Worldwide box office", and separate country totals. That way others can see both how the movie did in other countries, and can see the source numbers in their original currencies. Also, people can check the calculations. We are assuming the online currency site I found is accurate. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The IMDb is not a reliable source.  It's user-generated and generally can't be cited on Wikipedia.  Sources you can use for box office gross include Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency conversion and worldwide box office. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Reservoir Dogs. 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/20120807002342/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/30/year/1992.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/30/year/1992.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://yubarifanta.com/index_pc.php?ct=archive.php&langue=21002
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/500/1.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208103310/http://www.salon.com/music/sharps/1997/12/22sharps.html to http://www1.salon.com/music/sharps/1997/12/22sharps.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014153606/http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/reservoirdogs/ to http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/reservoirdogs/
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) 19:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Reservoir Dogs. 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/20120611080655/http://www.rattlerecords.com/artist.htm to http://www.rattlerecords.com/artist.htm
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) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The plot currently states, near the end "All three fire; both Cabots are killed, and White and Orange are wounded"  This isn't the best description I feel - Orange is already seriously wounded.  Current wording suggests not - ie he's only now been wounded, which obviously doesn't make sense.  I can't think of a better description right now, but it's poor wording.  "Hit", not "wounded" perhaps? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments, so making the change.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious point - not a facetious comment: 

message: This is the 12-minute short film Tarantino directed in 1991, made with the help of the Sundance Film institute, and served as a proof of concept for the feature film. It featured Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink, David Jensen as Joe Cabot, and Tarantino as Mr. White. 
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6493238/reference/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rbAzLZUiw
I think it would be appropriate to add a reference to this as part of the first paragraph of the "Production" section. Thoughts?
Nizamarain (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add information about the 12-minute Reservoir Dogs short 

message: The redirect Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 07:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]