Talk:Adaptations of Moby-Dick

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles

Stage vs. Theater

Why are these two different sections? Hello, what's the difference? 69.178.122.114 11:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

The film quotes heavily from Moby Dick. Sunil060902 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for adaptations of the novel. ST2 is not an adaptation of the novel and thus should not be included here. Otto4711 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other adoptions by TV:
- Voyage to the Bottom on the Sea an episode in which a scentist is obessed with running a whale to ground-and ends up being carried to the bottom of the sea by the whale
- The Fintstones-Fred "catchs" a white whale-but Barney screws up taking a picture for proof!
- STII:TWoK Khan is "Ahab" while Kirk and the ENterprise are the "White Whale".
- In The Hobbit Moive Trilogy Thorin Oakenshield has an Ahab obession killing the "Great White Orc" Azog who killed Thorin's grandfather and nephew Kili; in the last scene of the Trilogy Thorin (At the cost of his own life) finally kills the "Great White Orc" in a personnel duel.

Fair use rationale for Image:Mobydick1.jpg

Image:Mobydick1.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 04:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia?!

How is Moby Dick's impact on popular culture "trivia"? (rolling eyes) JAF1970 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JAF1970, I did not follow what you posted about. Are you commenting on something in the main article? Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Why does Moby-Dick in Popular Culture redirect here? They are obviously not the same thing, and there should be a seperate article for references to the story. Wheatleya (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AFD some time ago that resulted in the relocation of the pop culture article to this name along with a restriction to actual adaptations of the novel. "References to the story" would be a collection of trivia, which are discouraged since "this one time this one guy on this one TV show said 'Moby Dick'" is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I won't get into arguing about policy, but surely the redirect is still invalid? There are links to that page which end up here, not what the reader would have expected. Wheatleya (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the GFDL requires keeping the redirect because of the edit history. Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adaption vs. Allusion

The article, especially the "other" category, is full of allusions rather than adaptations. I am in favor of deleting random allusions in this article. Wickedjacob (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Adaptations Section and Stuart Gordon

I haven't heard the October 2010 Radio 4 adaptation, but find it a tiny bit difficult to believe that the specially composed music was by the american horror writer/producer Stuart Gordon that the paragraph currently links to. Of course, I could be wrong - he's a talented chap. Lack of reference doesn't help however. Greg1138 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a Moby Dick in popular culture article?

This article tends to accumulate a lot of entries that are really just allusions to Moby Dick, and not adaptations. I think it's most valuable if it's kept pruned to those, but I found some of the entries that don't belong here interesting, and I wonder if there should be a separate article to collect them? For example Star Trek II and first contact are certainly not adaptations, but the explicit connections might be worth pointing out in some centralized place. Has a Moby Dick in pop culture article been tried? BrightVamp (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]