Talk:Pulp fiction

See also Talk:Pulp Fiction.

Redirects

This page should not redirect to Pulp Fiction as the film borrows its title from the historical genre-cum-publication format known as "pulp fiction". This page had properly redirected to pulp magazine yet it is repeatedly reverted to direct to the film. Just as Motion sickness shouldn't forward you to Motion Sickness, neither should this page redirect you to the film's. I will put a disclaimer on the Pulp magazine page that says "'Pulp fiction' redirects here. For the film, see..." Jonathan F 00:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions Pulp Fiction should be Pulp Fiction (film), which would entirely eleviate this whole issue. EvilCouch 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a WP:RM that if approved it should move Pulp Fiction to Pulp Fiction (film). If you're interested, please see the relevant talk page. F3-R4 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that is unnecessarily bureaucratic. While most people who search for "motion sickness" want to learn about the sensation and not the film (which I personally have never heard of), almost everyone who searches for "pulp fiction" is looking for the movie, not the magazine type. If people want to look for the magazine and search for "pulp fiction", they should not to be surprised to be redirected to the movie's page, from which it is easy to be redirected to the genre that they were looking for. While it is true that the movie is named after the genre, the phrase is now almost exclusively associated with the movie. I think especially as the article linked to is not even titled "pulp fiction" that it should redirect to the movie, for the sake of convenience. I understand the point, but I feel it's holding to the rule for the sake of the rule and not as a benefit to anyone. --Butterboy 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make a clarification that the arguments made about what should be done at Pulp fiction does not necessarily all transfer to what should be done at Pulp Fiction, since I made some arguments elsewhere about what should be done at Pulp Fiction. Also: no, Wikipedia:Naming conventions does not recommend that film article titles always be lengthened with disambiguation parentheses. --Bxj (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of this weird Wikipedia idiocies, where some arcane rule makes millions of user work harder. --91.10.11.86 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp fiction description on the disambiguation page

I edited the short description of what pulp fiction refers to. The previous description said that they were printed on glossy paper, but the article says that they were printed on cheap pulp paper, and that the ones printed on higher-quality paper were called 'glossies' or 'slicks', directly contradicting the description given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.17.151 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]