Jump to content

Talk:Tears in rain monologue/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

original research

Isn't this entire article original research?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.62.96 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2006

Parts of it appear to be pure speculation. The only concrete facts it is going on are the name and the fact that the main character of Soldier was a veteran of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wookieepedian (talk • contribs) 11:02, 6 January 2006

Origin

I've got a question concerning the origin of the term. The article says that Rutger Hauer used it in the monologue he wrote. I don't think that's true. A different monologue (including the "Tannhauser Gate" reference) already existed in a pre-shooting script from 1981. [1]
AFAIK, Rutger Hauer just changed parts of it and added things (like the famous rain/tears-part). Can some please verify the information given in the article?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.93.188 (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2006

  • Yes, the speech is adapted from Peoples' drafts. I own a copy of the December 22, 1980 draft, and it has a similar sppech (no Tannhauser Gate reference, though). It does need to be changed to something like: "Hauer rewrote Peoples' original speech, shortening and sharpening it." Sir Rhosis 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On the DVD, commentary track 2 (with the writers and michael deeley) michael deeley claims that rutger came up with this line as well as the idea to hold the bird last minute on set, asking to talk to scott. (jump to 1:46:08) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.69.189.176 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

C3+ beams?

This article redirects from "C-beam(s)", which are a subject on their own. And not one that is entirely devoid of interesting speculation. Rutger Hauer could have been referring to a laser weapon. This is not a shot in the dark: some of the lasers with highest power output today are the Carbon oxide lasers; perhaps the technology of the weapons used at the Gate is Carbon-based. As for the abbreviation, there's already a particular type of carbon-ion laser with medical applications known as C3+ beam. --CubOfJudahsLion 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seabees

I believe Rutger Hauer is saying "seabees", not "c-beams". Consider: light beams are invisible, and would not "glitter". Construction Brigades would. In a military context, this makes sense. Observe his mouth carefully. He does not make an 'em' sound. I believe the transcription was done by someone who was not familiar with the military jargon:seabees. Wpbluemike (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)wpbluemike

  • The m is there in the cited draft script.
    --Jerzy•t 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Scott refers to this scene as the "C-beams" poem, and the subtitles in the film also read "C-beams"

Tannhauser Gate Image

This image can be found within the Theatrical Trailer located in the special features section of the Soldier DVD.

This is not an image of Tannhauser Gate. The supplementing voiceover suggests that this is a rendering of a "genetic profile." This can be located between [00:00:45] and [00:00:48] of the trailer.
Suggesting possible removal or replacement of this image with a more appropriate candidate.
01:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk) 01:53-:54 (3 edits), 18 February 2007 74.97.225.245

Yep, that's right. The image is not about Tannhauser Gate, but about the new soldier's DNA. Replacement needed. 192.129.3.135 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A possible explanation

Found this roaming on the net...

"Tannhauser is a renowned Physicist who theorized that 2 black holes revolving around a common point will create a rift in the time/space continuum (for lack of a better word) which theoretically will be a gateway to another part of the universe or time(?) if a ship could travel through it. Thus the name Tannhauser Gate. His theories were the basis of Quantum Physics (I guess his and Einstein's) The way I understand C Beams as mentioned in the movie is that C is basically what the speed of light is (as in E=mc*squared) and with the black holes present in the Tannhauser Gate sucking up space, anything around it would eventually travel through the gate at close to the speed of light = C. and maybe emitting a trail (beam) as it burns out. Hence C Beams. Or maybe it's just another word for light beams as it gets sucked through the gate. one other thing is because space is bent around the gate - hence the C-beam reference (architecture apporache) just mho."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.75.51 (talk) 22:57-:58 (3 edits), 18 May 2007

  • There is zero support for that complexity in the film. (Well, it's consistent, but so are a million or so alternatives.) Only notable if a substantial discussion of that hypothesis has become notable -- in case which neither its plausibility or its accuracy would be relevant.
    BTW, the closest AE got to QM was his brilliant 1905 analysis of someone's photo-electric effect experiments, which QM eventually gave an explanation for. He hated QM, and probably died convinced it was BS.
    --Jerzy•t 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually AE gave the explanation of the PEE, which then developed into QM. Really off-topic, but thought you should know.. :-). --Michael C. Price talk 08:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying Einstein's "brilliant analysis of someone else's experiment is the closest he ever comes" vastly undervalues Einstein's contribution to Quantum theory on several points: 1. all theorists are analyzing "someone else's" experiments - the way you wrote it makes it sound as though he is just doing something derivative/unoriginal 2. Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel prize in Physics for this "analysis" (not relativity theories) 3. this analysis posited for the first time EVER the existence a real physical entity - a quantum - thus constituting the INVENTION of quantum theory.
Netrapt (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BR-soldier5.jpg

Image:BR-soldier5.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 Wikipedia articles 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 00:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the script linked to in reference 1 known to be in the public domain? If not, there probably shouldn't be a link to it. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Copyright protection includes no right to prohibit or restrict linking. If you're just having trouble expressing what you know, try again and this time wait for discussion.
    --Jerzy•t 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the MPAA etc. are now suing basically about links to copyrighted material (Pirate Bay etc.). Wikipedia is unlikely to get into any significant trouble because of it, but it's still against the policy Wikipedia has chosen to adopt... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of the provision at Wikipedia:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, stand corrected to that extent, and appreciate the heads-up. I see it applies when
    you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright
so if you are explicitly deducing such knowledge from consulting
"Numerous individual copyrights ..." on http://www.brmovie.com/ and
"Copyright statements and exclusions" box on http://www.brmovie.com/Site_Info.htm
please give enuf detail that your effort doesn't need to be repeated to confirm your conclusion, and i'll support removal.
I think even w/o AGF that your intent is clearly innocent, and that there's a good chance that the site is copy-vio'ing in that specific case. Still, the burden of proof re links (not as opposed to re extracting (quoting) from a site) has to be heavier on the remover's side than asking whether it's "known to be in the public domain", lest claiming link-copy-vio and later gutting the corresponding text for lack of verification should become a means of suppressing otherwise sound content deemed unfavorable to the interests of the complaining editor or their employer.
--Jerzy•t 02:20 & 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also puzzled by the passive-sounding acquiescence to this:
    Lack of permission to quote does not suppress discourse, bcz of the alternative of paraphrasing and linking to the source so others can confirm the accuracy of the paraphrase. (Copyright protects intellectual property not in ideas, but in specific expressions of the ideas.)
    Lack of permission to link, as i understand this policy, leaves no such alternative, since the issue is the link; it seems to imply our refs should say, in lieu of the link
    , which is available on-line tho linking to it is prohibited. The current fee for access to the approved means of verifying the fact stated here is $xx.xx at this Web site: .... (Is it ever in the public interest to grant property in the ability to confirm someone's well established acceptance of the ideas?)
I'm not interested in hashing out this policy (let alone here), but it doesn't sound well thot thru, and i predict it won't receive the respect of the editing community that even our traditional copy-vio policy has.
Hmm. Eric E. Schmidt told Charlie Rose the WP is "one of the great accomplishments of humanity" (or words to that effect). Have we reached the point where editor's efforts are wasted on editing, and should be shifted into politics, working toward a legal extension of Fair use, either tailored to WP's needs, or granting special status specifically to the Wikimedia Foundation, in order to preserve that accomplishment?
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I've changed two spellings:

Tannhāuser to Tanhauser

and

C-beams to c-beams

for essentially the same reason: They appear spelled those respective ways in the cited script, and the respective uses i removed purport to reflect not a text, but a recording of speech (which of course precludes knowledge of what spelling the speaker had in mind).
The difference is especially significant since our apparent OR has connected TG with Tannhäuser to the extent of saying

The Tannhäuser Gate ... [has] its source ... in ancient German legend.

which BS i will reword to reflect the absence of evidence of any such gate in the legends. The casing of c-beams is probably insignificant (except to rule out the possibility that C stands for carbon) bcz the scriptwriters probably just liked the way that the syllable see fit in with the other sounds in the sentence, and the ambiguity of referring to a technology unknown to the audience, and maybe even some nuance of "sea-beams", which (ISYN) has always been dominant in my imaging of the phrase!
But, and more importantly, Rutger Hauer -- despite his professional command of English -- is European (and native speaker of a closer relative of German), and would (like a well-educated American) pronounce "Tannhäuser" (at least in his gut) as TON-hoizer (rhyming the t-o-n with Ron or Don), not -- as suggested by the script's spelling -- as TAN-howzer. Given that we know he used the pronunciation that would be recognized by an American audience as referring to the exotic-looking "Tannhäuser" (without sounding as jarringly phony as Kwisatz Haderach sounds -- to us goyim), the cited script's spelling clearly captures the intent.
--Jerzy•t 21:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fictitious location?

It may seem aggressive that part of what i replaced is the opening of the lead sent,

The Tannhäuser Gate is a fictitious location ...

which is nothing more or less than PoV resulting from OR.
I can just imagine someone saying "Well, i don't what sense of 'gate' is involved, but doesn't "near" imply a location?" Well, no. The TG could consistently be a spacecraft, or the moving gap between two fleets of spacecraft, or the only one, among many Tannhäuser-Gate-generating devices, that his military unit has control over. Or, like Orion, a range of directions that is defined by the appearance of mutual nearness, from one point of view (Sol system, in the case of Orion), shared by stars that are actually closer to stars that appear further. Or a range of directions that are defined by the apparent gap between unreachably distant galaxies.
In any case, the article would not be about the location. It's about the term, a term whose meaning is unknown.
--Jerzy•t 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant

Material is being deleted which references the TG with the edit summary claim that it is "utterly irrelevant". This is nonsense, since any reference to the TG is relevant by definition. It may not be notable, or fancruft or whatever, but it is definitely relevant. --Michael C. Price talk 05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Trivia sections, Wikipedia:Handling trivia, and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. The way I usually handle it is to find at least one (two is better) secondary source that refers to the trivia item in the relevant context. Ideally, editors should not be making this determination, but relying on sources that have already highlighted the material in question. If the work is notable, this should be easy to do. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it may not be notable, or fancruft or whatever, but it is definitely relevant. --Michael C. Price talk 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Relevant in what way? How is it relevant to this encyclopedia article? "Groups of disparate facts lack such context, and should be avoided." Let's start at the beginning: Why do we have an article on Tannhauser Gate? The current sources don't appear to support it. Now, I'm a fan of Blade Runner just like everyone else here, but if this article was to go to AfD right now, do you think it would survive? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Already happened, and it has survived. --Michael C. Price talk 11:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, no fictional content is too trivial to survive an AfD these days if the usual clique arrives to defend it. That said, unless some references are added which actually discuss the real-world impact of this phrase (most of the examples don't even indicate that they were inspired by Blade Runner), it's definitely due a nomination. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If we take a big picture view, we find that the relevant quote is already covered by List of Blade Runner characters#Roy Batty. However, the quote may be notable enough for its own article, and any discussion of Tannhauser Gate should be a part of it. So, I think the focus of the topic is off. It should be about "Like Tears in Rain", not "Tannhauser Gate". Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That would the domain of a different article; this article is about the phrase "Tannhauser gate", which owes its origin to Blade Runner. --Michael C. Price talk 11:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It owes its origin to the monologue ("Like Tears in Rain") in the film, and it is the monologue itself which is notable, not Tannhauser gate. All other uses are not notable at this time. Really, it's open and shut. If you don't see this, then there's nothing I can do for you. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the AfD has come and gone. --Michael C. Price talk 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the gales of laughter; I needed it. I have never seen such a weak rationale for a keep in my entire time here. I will permalink to that AfD the next time an editor says they are feeling down or depressed. If that doesn't evoke a good laugh, nothing will. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The AfD itself is a complete train wreck; it's solely predicated on the argument that the term has seen wider use in science fiction, which is sourced to TV Tropes. TV Tropes being a wiki which wears its complete lack of inclusion guidelines as a badge of honour. Throw in five me-too comments and a weak closing admin and you've got yourself a typical fiction AfD. Sadly, people are hounded off the project these days for pointing this out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Not just TV, but also books and games. But don't let a few facts get in the way of a good rant. The bottom line is, are readers interested in the article? Yes, they are. --Michael C. Price talk 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
What sources observe the reference to the gate on TV and in books and games? Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen at least one primary source which is repeatedly deleted. It is very disingenuous to delete numerous references then say "there are no references" as an argument for deletion. I won't weigh in on whether or not this article is notable, but I dislike disingenuous arguments. 211.26.193.92 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source composed of primary and secondary sources, and sometimes tertiary sources for reference purposes. Which sources indicate notability regarding this topic? In other words, which sources indicate why we have this article? Editors can't make that determination. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If editors can't make that determination, from where comes your determination that the monologue itself is notable? Could this possibly be a double-standard at work? 211.26.193.92 (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please try to pay attention. The monologue is notable based on the sheer number of reliable sources that discuss its importance. For example, film critic Desson Howe calls Hauer's monologue "one of the most touching in modern movie history." I can write an entire article about the monologue using reliable sources about it. Now which ones discuss Tannhauser Gate? Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Does Desson Howe go on to say that the monologue has had a cultural impact? If not, then you are no less guilty of citing PRIMARY sources (i.e. examples of the personal opinion of numerous individuals) than the editor of this Tannhauser Gate article is in citing numerous examples of inspired uses of "Tannhauser Gate", and it would be no less legitimate for people to repeatedly delete your references. 2) Does Desson Howe or any of the other critics you refer to include research in their articles proving that this is more that their mere personal opinion and that the monologue have had an actual cultural impact, or are you picking and choosing subjective opinions of individuals who agree with your opinion so as to prove your opinion "notable"? I note absent such research, that renders your primary (yes, primary) sources less objective than the Tannhauser Gate sources. You would no less be engaging in "original research". Will you also cite numerous subjective opinions of individuals who didn't think the monologue was a big deal, or is it sufficient to unobjectively cite the personal opinions of, say, 12 selected people to establish that a line of dialogue is well-written? 211.26.193.92 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you are joking or wikilawyering. A discussion of the importance of the monologue appears in dozens of scholarly sources, and it is one of the most notable scenes in the history of science fiction films. Plenty of secondary sources cover this topic. Now, please provide at least one that discusses the importance of "Tannhauser Gate". I can't seem to find any. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The gate is obviously notable, just take a look at the number of other works of fiction that are based or derived from it, or make references to it. If you dispute that, take it to AfD again.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors can't assert notability merely by finding references to the concept in popular culture. That's what we use sources to do. And when you look at the sources, you find that the vast majority refer to the monologue, not Tannhauser Gate. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is strictly false. "Tannhauser Gate" itself is a noun. The monologue is an expression of thoughts and feelings. All of the following refer to Tannhauser (or equiv spelling) as a place or thing (a noun) as opposed to the ideas conveyed by the speech: Soldier, Gunbusters, Heavy Gear, Noir, Gunnerkigg Court, Homeworld. These are the large majority of the sources cited. So if you yourself are of the opinion that the speech itself is notable (and as per above you are), then you must also be of the opinion that the more numerous references to the Tannhauser Gate specifically and in isolation from the poem is notable if your assessment is based upon an objective weighing of one vs the other. If they were instead references to the experience of dying after having many wonderous experiences or something along those lines you'd have more of a point, but no, they are references to a fictional place or thing outside the context of the monologue.211.26.193.92 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What I said is true, not false, and you can't wikilawyer over core policies. The monologue/speech is indeed notable, and an article on the subject would be supported by good sources. However, this article is not supported by any good sources, and unless some are found, I would recommend redirecting it to an article on the monologue because this article is an unsourced subset of that topic. Is this making sense to you? Sources supporting the notability of the monologue are numerous.[2] Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1) You fail to address my point that there are more references to Tannhauser Gate (a noun) specifically. 2) You fail to address how the monologue/speech is notable when, going by the items listed here, there are more references to Tannhauser Gate than the monologue/speech. 3) Absent a list of your own devising proving otherwise, your statement that the majority of the references are to the monologue/speech must remain unsubstantiated or a falsehood, and your contention that the monologue/speech is notable whilst the noun itself is not will have to remain little more than your own personal, unsupported statement of bias. Again, I have no opinion on whether one or the other is notable. I only note herein the perception of a lack of objectivity or rationale to your position. Lastly, I have no idea where this "wikilawyer" label comes from or what it means unless it is a label you reserve for people who question your objectivity.211.26.193.92 (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have failed nothing, and I have addressed all points while you continue to evade them. What reliable sources discuss the importance of Tannhauser Gate? This article appears to be original research. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Viriditas, you attempt to address only one of my 3 above-noted points for the VERY FIRST TIME above by citing one film critic's opinion -- and statements about one's own opinion are hardly objective evidence of anything -- so I am totally unimpressed by your hostile attitude. Otherwise, your posts assume your opinion to be correct and those of others to be incorrect. Your quote does absolutely nothing to establish that the monologue has had any ongoing impact on the arts. It represents only the opinion of a film critic (although you imply there are more). Do all positive reviews of a line of dialogue make that line of dialogue sufficiently "notable" for inclusion into Wikipedia? Yet citations of numerous primary sources demonstrating an actual cultural impact on the arts (vs common agreement that some dialogue was well written) are somehow irrelevant? That doesn't hold up under any objective scrutiney. (And don't cite the song lyrics inspired by the monologue to me -- that would be way too hypocritical after arguing the irrelevance of primary sources). If there are hundreds of critics in agreement that a particular line of dialogue is terrible (e.g. in the film Gigli) does that also make it notable? Or does citing a subjective opinion only count in establishing that something is positive? Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't notability have more to do with cultural impact than common opinion? Again, there's far more objective evidence thus far of people being inspired by the idea of the Tannhauser Gate itself, a point you continue to evade. As for me: I am evading nothing. I am not here to establish that the Tannhauser Gate article is notable, as I have repeatedly made clear, so I do not plan to do any research into sources, primary, secondary or tertiary (and that in no way abrogates my right to comment, a right that, from you comments about "wikilawyering" you apparently arrogantly reserve for yourself). I am pointing out your apparent lack of objectivity or reasonableness on this issue and backing up myself with facts and logic: If the monologue is notable, it appears that the Tannhauser Gate article is more notable. If neither are notable, so what? You still have every right to disagree and prove me wrong with something other than unsubstantiated pronouncements ("my article would be more notable than yours"), and I still have a right to point out your failure to do so. If you conceded that the monologue itself was not noteworthy by your own expressed standards (or backed up your position that your article on the monologue would be notable with anything other than double-standards), I would not see such a glaring lack of objectivity, but you persist with that position. To summarise: Showing that a book refers to "Tannhauser Gate" is objective evidence that the "Tannhauser Gate" idea has been picked up by other artists. Showing that a critic thinks this monologue is good shows one person's subjective opinion might agree with yours (and others') and nothing more. That's pretty weak in comparison. And, by any definition, in an article about how Tannhauser Gate has taken on a life of its own through its use by other artists, there is hardly anything more relevant than a citation of that very fact. Your calling it "irrelevant" is entirely disingenuous, repeated deletions of a relevant citation is vandalism, and attempts to confuse that issue by turning this instead into a discussion of the notability of the article is evasive and calls into question your objectivity. Cheers 211.26.193.92 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but WP:COATRACK is not how we write articles. Please provide a single source that discusses the significance of "Tannhauser Gate". Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A similar issue related to this topic is the splitting off of an article on the phrase mortal coil from Shakespeare's "To be, or not to be". The difference is that "mortal coil" is notable, with sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms and other works talking about its meaning and usage in popular culture. Do we find the same thing with Tannhauser Gate? Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[3] --Michael C. Price talk 21:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I think you understand the concept of WP:RS. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There aren't any. This is why Michael C Price simply linked to the Google results, rather than offering any interpretation. Of the first thirty results shown to me, for instance, those which are not user-generated are all irrelevant (people's bands or iPhone games). Of course some people are happy to assert that having someone name one's band after a random quip from a film script is a perfectly valid claim to notability. Le sigh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering what our alternatives are here. Michael has provided at least one source that links the topic to a director and a published work, but that's not really good enough to support an article. My suggestion is to create an article on the parent topic (the monologue already has lots of good, solid sources) and merge whatever we can salvage from here into it. I really think this is the ideal solution, and I cannot understand why there is any opposition to it. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You can never understand other POVs. --Michael C. Price talk 12:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean? What about empathy? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly disgusted by what I'm seeing here: Here we have an article which may or may not be notable. That is arguably a legit issue. But here's the facts: 1) This article exists; 2) There is a decision in place to not delete the article, therefore so long as it continues to exist, people contributing to the article should be allowed to cite relevant sources; 3) A citation relevant to this article is being repeatedly deleted; 4) But it is the person who is reversing this act of vandalism, as opposed to the vandal him or herself, who is being reported as a vandal; 5) a moderator who is disappointed that this article was not deleted for failing to be notable is now trying to get around the decision not to delete this article by supporting a vandal's bid to repeatedly delete a relevant citation, which is a complete and utter abuse of power by anyone's standards. The right thing to do here is: 1) allow the citation to stand, 2) warn the person who kept deleting it that this was an act of vandalism, and 3) if you, Viriditas, are still unhappy about the fact that this article continues to exist, then write your own article and see if it lives up to any challenges, then put in a bid that the articles get merged OR take the proper steps to get the article deleted instead of supporting having vandals do the work for you. When you're only argument that a citation is not relevant is your belief that the article itself should not exist, that's hardly being fair and objective. It is mere arrogance. 211.26.193.92 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Please provide only one good, reliable source that highlights the notability of the topic in any context. I feel this is a very generous request. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. See latest ref added. --Michael C. Price talk 07:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael, are you using the word "ref" differently than the way we use it here? Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
No--Michael C. Price talk 09:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, but it demonstrates the notability of director Paul Anderson and his film Soldier (1998) rather than this topic. If this topic was notable, the source would say something about it. It does not, and I assume neither does any other. This is a good example of WP:COATRACK. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You asked for a ref that mentioned TG "in any context". I provided it (and in a secondary source, to boot). The end. --Michael C. Price talk 09:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I asked for at all, Michael. I said, "Please provide only one good, reliable source that highlights the notability of the topic in any context." The source you added proves the notability of Paul Anderson and his work. It says nothing about the importance, meaning, or significance of "Tannhauser Gate". Nothing. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. The existence of the sources is evidence for the notability of Paul Anderson, his film and the significance of "Tannhauser Gate". That's how it is for most sources. Does a report on X state the importance of X? Not usually, yet we can still source an article about X from such sources. --Michael C. Price talk 12:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, the argument that notability is inherited (paying specific attention to the matter of whether fictional subjects are deemed to be notable if their authors or the works they are included in are so deemed) was raised in a long-running RfC. It was, in the end, thoroughly rejected by the community (specifically, proposal A.1 received the most opposition of any proposal raised, and A.2 received the most support). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We aren't talking about the argument that notability is inherited. --Michael C. Price talk 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If your assertion above that the existence of the sources is evidence for the notability of Paul Anderson, his film and the significance of "Tannhauser Gate" does not actually assert that Tannhauser Gate is notable because Paul Anderson and his film are notable, then I'm unsure as to why you presented a reference which contains exactly one sentence on the present subject of this article, and indeed notes that the reference is "in passing" (and thus trivial). Surely you were aware that this wasn't what was being asked for? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
One sentence is enough. BTW I do not agree with your various interpretations above, but I don't think I need waste more time on the subject since the AfD has come and gone. Time to move on. --Michael C. Price talk 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The AfD in question was almost a year ago, Michael. We can have another one if you like. I'm trying to use this talk page to avoid that, but it seems you are not open to rational discussion. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting

Seeing as the discussion seems to have run its course, I'm going to redirect this to Blade Runner#Cultural influence shortly. There's nothing here except trivial mentions of the phrase and there are no reliable sources with which to establish the notability of the purported subject of this article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No objections here, but my preference is to redirect it to User:Viriditas/Tears in Rain when that article is ready for mainspace. After all, that's where the term is used. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that you're actually trying too hard there to extract meaning from what is still only one memorable scene from a film. Much of that userspace content could be merged to the existing film article. There's no prohibition on adding high-quality new content to FAs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a merge might be the end result. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The AfD rejected the BR merge proposal, and since this article now has more sources I can't see that there's any reason to revisit it. As for merging with the TiR, there would be a lot of data loss at present. --Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to reopen the AfD then please observe the guidelines and notify previous participants. --Michael C. Price talk 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a good but brief argument as to why a redirect doesn't work for you? Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[4] --Michael C. Price talk 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you claim a redirect isn't needed because 1) we have good sources for TG and 2) we would lose data. 1 isn't true as CC and myself noted above, and 2 is a valid concern, so I will only address it here. We already have Category:Blade Runner spin-offs and Blade Runner#Cultural influence. I'm not sure what else you require. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The sole keep argument raised in the AfD was invalid, as detailed in the discussion above, and arguing that said discussion is invalid unless it takes place on an AfD is nothing but wikilawyering. I've now redirected the article; you would be better served taking Viriditas's userspace content and attempting to integrate the valuable bits into the main Blade Runner article than edit warring over this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I very strenuously object to this redirect, and, had I been aware of this discussion, I would have stated my objection previously. Mr. Price and I may differ as to what content is relevant for this article, but we agree that the subject is relevant on its own. As he said, the recent AfD was valid, and the arguments raised were persuasive. This subject now has a life, independent of, though related to, Blade Runner. The redirect seems, at best, presumptuous. Especially given the fact that the subsection never mentions Tannhauser. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, RepublicanJacobite, and I restored the article.--Michael C. Price talk 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring. Brilliant. RepublicanJacobite, what are your reasons for suggesting that this subject (i.e. the fictional "Tannhauser Gate", rather than the Tears in Rain speech) has "taken on a life of its own", as backed up by reliable sources? There were none in the AfD, and Michael C Price has demonstrated an inability to honestly argue that any exist. Would you argue that the trivial references (single sentences in longer works) presently in the article constitute notability? You've even made edit summaries yourself which would indicate otherwise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No response to the above, so I've restored the redirect. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
CC violated AGF. Don't expect a response. --Michael C. Price talk 08:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
No reliable sources, no rationale, and no redirect. We're heading back to AfD, Mr. Price. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I can assume that you mean well without having to assume that you understand policy. In this case you plainly don't, and your flippant, combative responses pretty much confirm that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Your accusations of dishonesty confirm something as well. --Michael C. Price talk 02:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael can you confirm that you wish for me to take this back to AfD? If I restore the redirect, you'll simply revert me, correct? Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not "simply", no; I have been adding material to the article. I suggest others try being constructive as well. --Michael C. Price talk 09:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael, there isn't a single secondary source that supports the significance of the term "Tannhauser Gate" or explains what it even means. This article is going to go back to AfD because it is pure OR. Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep or merge and redirect

Primary and secondary sources do not appear to meet the requirement for a standalone article on this topic. At least one previous AfD closed as keep, but upon examining those arguments, weak appeals to unreliable sources evaded close scrutiny. Rather than start another AfD on the subject, I would like to open a broader discussion about the subject of Tannhauser Gate, and whether we should consider keeping it as is or merging and redirecting whatever we can salvage into Blade Runner#Cultural influence. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect Tannhauser Gate. I reviewed the article and did some research but could not find significant coverage about this never-seen fictional element. It's a made-up word in a quote from a science fiction film, and its context is best discussed in the "Cultural influence" section. The article for the film Soldier can also mention Tannhauser Gate if it can be integrated somehow. Erik (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Undecided for now. Would be more interested in an article about the speech because that seems more valuable discussing. The hits about Tannhauser Gate have little to do with the fictional location and a lot to do with the speech and its meanings. Presence of Tannhauser Gate in other media would be best mentioned in that context. Not sure if others would be up for that? It would be a sort of a merge but to a new article about the speech which contains the term. This would be a more narrow focus than the whole film itself. Erik (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • AfD is really for if an article should be kept or deleted. If an article is kept, that does not mean it cannot be merged. After all, merging is shifting content. Do you not think that we can have a paragraph's mention of the quote and its contents in "Cultural influence"? Erik (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It did not seem that the AfD discussed the possibility of merging and redirecting. "Tannhauser Gate" as a term does exist and can be searched. Merging and redirecting is a much more relevant option to keeping because unlike deleting, there is content we can work with. Topics need to be notable by having significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, though. Does significant coverage exist? Erik (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You haven't answered any of these questions in the previous discussion, and this RfC is intended to answer those questions. Is this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. I note that there are 85 Google Books hits for Tannhauser Gate and 20 for Tanhauser Gate. This indicates that the topic has reached a level of cultural resonance which is best handled in this article. It is also used in other fictional works, and I would rather not clutter up a Blade Runner article with material that will look like trivia there. We wouldn't want the information in this article to be lost in time, like tears in the rain, would we? Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If the article is kept, the "Popular culture" section must go. It is trivial with its passing mentions. Erik (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Abductive, please actually look at the Google hits you found. Your argument proves the need for a merge and redirect. The vast majority of the 105 hits you found are from the "Tears in Rain" quote in the film, Blade Runner. (see for example User:Viriditas/Tears in Rain) "Tannhauser Gate" is part of the monologue from that speech. The meaning and symbolism of this speech is partly covered in various Blade Runner sub-articles like Themes in Blade Runner. If we did need a separate article, it would be called Tears in Rain (Blade Runner), not Tannhauser Gate. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the search results. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have looked at the results, and it seems the whole speech is quoted and discussed. Tannhauser Gate has a slight edge (in my opinion) because of the additional usage in other works. Also, if one has to hang an article on something, it is best to do so on the most unique portion of the speech. Abductive (reasoning) 17:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why would it not be even better to have an article about the speech itself? You acknowledge that the sources analyze the speech, right? It can encompass Tannhauser Gate in that context. See my user page below. Erik (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect I find it rather irritating that one phrase in a recent, popular US film can have an article, while foreign, older, or cult films need to fight tooth and nail to have an article at all... and the first person who quotes "otherstuffexists" or some other Wiki-blather, gets a kick in the wiki-nuts... that said, the article's existence as such doesn't bother me, but I sure wouldn't have started it. I'd be happier with a Merge. Dekkappai (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, I'm okay with either. Whether the term deserves its own article is an endless debate (given the fact that we're discussing it after the AfD closed as keep which indicates that the article should be... well... kept!) so as long as the info won't be removed, I don't really care whether it's kept as is or not. Devon1980 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the Google Books references. It's a major feature of the Gunbuster series, for example, and that series even has "scientific lessons" at the end of each episode which discuss this and other difficult scientific points. It needs to be in its own article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The Google Books references discuss the particular line or the lines in the speech. Wouldn't it be better to have an article focused on the given speech? Also, can you clarify Gunbuster's relationship with Tannhauser Gate? I'm not seeing the significant coverage for this made-up term in a fictional character's dialogue. Erik (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That is the very definition of unsourced fancruft. Why is it in this article? Do we need a disambiguation page for "Tannhauser Gate"? I have no objection to one, but we can't have an article about the subject without good sources. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for answering the question. I'm trying to think of another way to cover the topic. You mentioned Google Books results, and I reviewed these. Most of the references are related to the speech itself. The unseen location itself is not quite being covered significantly; it is analysis of the speech. It's possible that presence of the speech's elements in other media, like Tannhauser Gate in Gunbuster and Soldier, could be identified in that context. What do you think? Erik (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Michael C. Price. This is nothing less than an end run around the AfD. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The AfD you refer to took place in July 2009. Almost a year later, the problems raised in that AfD have still not been resolved. This RfC was advertised on two related WikiProjects (Films and science fiction) before Michael C Price canvassed the same supporting editors from the old AfD. That kind of behavior defeats the purpose of an RfC. I was not a participant in the original AfD, nor was I a direct participant in the most recent dispute dated 11 March 2010; I came here in response to that dispute, discussed the matter with several editors, and realized that an RfC would be appropriate after considering going back to AfD. This RfC is intended to discuss the underlying issues. So far, I have seen little to no discussion related to this RfC and lots of votestacking from the same group of editors. No offense RepublicanJacobite, but "Keep per Michael C Price" amounts to "merge and redirect" what we can salvage, as Michael has been unable to find a reliable source that supports the very existence of this article. Take the lead section for example. What sources are used to support it? None, nor can any be found. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • FYI I contacted all the participants from after AfD's relisting - which Viriditas should have done. As for the coverage, see the article and the discussion. --Michael C. Price talk 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Why would I contact editors who participated in an AfD that I had nothing to do with? This is an RfC and I listed it in the appropriate place to generate attention from neutral participants. I did not canvass partisan editors in the hopes of votestacking the outcome, Michael. Again, which reliable source are you using to support the content under discussion? Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for clarifying that your failure to contact previous AfD participants was intentional, not merely an oversight. --Michael C. Price talk 05:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Michael, do you understand that your non-neutral votestacking was inappropriate, and that this RfC was appropriately announced on two WikiProject talk pages and on the centralized RfC board? If this isn't making sense to you, feel free to ask questions. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm sure Viriditas will bring up the fact that I was part of the original AfD to support his argument that Michael C. Price is trying to stock the discussion with people in support of keeping the article. I believe the reverse argument also applies, though, and he would prefer if those who participated in the AfD not comment on this. Anyone with an opinion is going to try to get support from others of the same opinion. That's not skirting the system. Anyway, I don't think that there is much question in most people's minds as to the value of the information, rather, it seems the main debate is whether that information warrants its own article or should be merged. I think the simple answer is that if Tannhauser Gate were merged into Blade Runner, even if all of the material was merged at first, over time editors at Blade Runner would steadily remove information that isn't directly related to the film. Most of us hate overstuffed "Trivia" and "In popular culture" sections filled with items not really related to the article they inhabit. Since, as I and others stated in the AfD, the term Tannhauser gate has taken on a much wider meaning than its origins in Blade Runner, it warrants its own article, rather than being shoehorned into an article it doesn't fully belong in. Neil Clancy 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not an AfD. This is a RfC, and you have not addressed the problem under discussion. Please provide a single reliable source that supports the content in this article. There are none. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You never provided any "answers" in any previous discussion, which is precisely the reason I started an RfC. Where are the opinions from neutral participants? Perhaps we should reset the RfC and remove the blatant votestacking. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You have given no "answers", and you did not contact "everybody". Your non-neutral canvassing was directed only towards those who agreed with you until you were called on it, and you notably "forgot" to contact User:EEMIV, User:Jack Merridew, and User:Thumperward, three editors who disagree with your position. This is why canvassing is not acceptable, and this is why an RfC was posted in three neutral areas for the purpose of seeking opinions from uninvolved editors. Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tanhauser gate redirects to Tanhauser gate#Cultural_influence which redirects to the section Blade runner#Cultural_influence, but the text Tanhauser gate does not appear anywhere in the Blade Runner article. Tannhauser Gate is currently a separate article, and appears elsewhere in the Blade runner article. So when we've decide what to do, let's tidy this up too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I created a possible article at User:Erik/Roy Batty's speech, though it could be named something else. I'm proposing this article because when we search for "Tannhauser Gate", the majority of the results refer to the speech itself and the various elements illustrated within it. Significant coverage exists for the speech, as seen in the article. In this narrower context, references like Soldier and Gunbuster can be identified, though I am wary of other examples that are self-referential and trivial. Are there any takers for this kind of approach? Just trying to think outside the box here; none of the current articles really use the analysis. Erik (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Feel free to use and build upon the sources and material in User:Viriditas/Tears in Rain. The only thing unsourced in that article is "The simile of "like tears in rain" is significant, as the organ of the eye is one of the primary symbols in the film." I couldn't find a source to support the connection. Otherwise, everything else is sourced. When I brought this up previously, Thumperward suggested a merge into one of the Blade Runner articles. This death scene is considered significant, and there are a lot of sources that discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsurprisingly, this has turned into another train wreck because it's attracted editors who think bold words are what "wins" debates around here. The arguments raised in the previous AfD were addressed in the discussion up-page, which editors should have reviewed in full before pasting their comments from the old AfD. It is precisely this lack of discussion which led to an RfC being raised. RepublicanJacobite is outright accusing editors of bad faith in skirting process after having been explicitly asked to back his allegations up above and having neglected to do so in #Redirecting above, which is flagrantly disingenuous. I would hope that whoever closes this RfA remembers that bold words mean absolutely nothing in these discussions, and indeed should hold no weight anywhere on the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - What justifies the retention of this article is that it is a concept relevant to non-Blade Runner related fiction. At the moment it exists as an extension of the Blade Runner article so I can see the logic for the merge suggestion, but it should be re-written from the POV of the concept rather than its origins in Blade Runner. The fictional works mentioned in the 'popular culture' section should be integrated fully into the article to give a chronology of the evolution of the phrase, and each of the works should be given as much consideration as Blade Runner and Soldier. As it stands it's an article about a speech from Blade Runner rather than the Tannhauser Gate, but given that the concept is so widespread throughout other fictional works I believe an article about the Tanhauser Gate is a good article topic. It just needs a bit of work to get its focus right. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you believe there is significant coverage about Tannhauser Gate? Abductive above even says that the speech is quoted and discussed, just that this topic has a "slight edge" because it has been used in popular culture. How would it be possible to sustain an article just because of this? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Also, if one has to hang an article on something, it is best to do so on the most unique portion of the speech." It still does address that the topic is not notable. There is significant coverage about the speech, but there is no significant coverage about the fictional element. The element cannot sustain its own article. We'll never see a quality writeup with this focus, as opposed to broadening the focus to be about the speech and its related elements. Also, if you have the chance, could you please answer my question about the relisted AfD and excluding EEMIV and Jack Merridew? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am only addressing one topic here. However, I disagree with you on the other topic, but I see no need to repeat myself on that score. PS if you want the answer to the "relisting" issue, please see Sanderstein's comment in the original AfD. --Michael C. Price talk 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand now. When you said relisted AfD, I was thinking that there was a second AfD somewhere, but that did not seem right. Honestly, I do not understand why you would not include them. Relisting means that the admin who reviewed the AfD wanted more input. That did not mean their input was invalid. I will be notifying them of this RfC so everyone who participated in the AfD will now be aware of this. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Blade Runner or one of the other related articles. I'm not convinced there's really a need for a separate article here. Note that merging this article wouldn't have to mean a loss of information - it could simply be turned into a 'cultural influence' section of the Blade Runner article. The essential issue with this article is that it basically amounts to 'list of cultural references to the Tannhauser Gate', and while that content is worth having somewhere, I don't think it justifies a separate article. Robofish (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the term

FYI, Venusberg (mythology) includes the following remark: "The Tannhauser Gate of film and fiction originated as an allusion to the pathway that the knight used to discover and travel to this supposed place of ultimate erotic adventure." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mporter (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 April 2010

Which is unsourced, and unsupported by any references in this article. This is looking more and more like the infamous Dark Angels AfD (to wit: "keep because completely unrelated subjects have used this name") every time I look at it, although mercifully the actors are different. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blade runner?

Why is this article all about Blade Runner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannh%C3%A4user The real gate was one supposedly found by the German poet Tannhauser into the hidden courts of Venus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.139.174 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

For future reference

[5]

[6]

Drmies (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I object to the recent page move, performed with no discussion, and against the consensus reached after long discussion above. If the editor wanted to move the page, which was sure to be controversial, he should have started a discussion here and gotten the opinions of other editors. Per bold, revert, discuss, the move should be reverted, a formal page move request made, and discussion on the matter should commence. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The discussions above seem rather stale now and the article has not been developing lately. But my impression is that my position is much the same as the editors Viriditas and Erik above — that it is the soliloquy as a whole which is notable rather than just the particular detail of the Tannhauser Gate. The move is therefore not especially controversial but is consistent with this wider position. I have cited two sources in support of the now current structure and shall continue to develop the article from such sources. If other editors have any sources to present, please bring them forward. Warden (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, as there had been a great deal of disagreement in the past, it was reasonable for you to assume that this move would be controversial. Therefore, the requested move process should have been used so that the matter could be discussed and debated. As I said above, per BRD, this move should be reversed, a formal move request made, and the matter should be discussed. In both previous discussions, a move was objected to and blocked. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As a previous contributor to discussions on this page, I was notified by RepublicanJacobite. For what it's worth, I support Colonel Warden's changes, and think the current version of the page is a considerable improvement - the whole soliloquy is a more logical subject of an article than just the 'Tannhauser Gate'. I do think the 'Allusions' section is a bit long, though - we don't really need to list every occasion the speech has been referenced in other fiction, given how many of them there are. Robofish (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I to agree with the merger, but I also agree with Jacobite in that this should have been brought to discussion first. Now that the integration already has been set into motion, the article is gonna need a little work. The title should also change into something more encompassing. Let's focus on that, not on the fact that we didn't follow the correct procedure. Devon1980 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As much as this parody of an article shouldn't exist separately anyway, far better for it to at least nominally be based on the speech rather than the completely fictional thing which happens to be alluded to in said speech. So a good move, basically. The next step should be trivia removal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the page move/rename to the soliloquy -- a real-world concept with at least a modicum of third-party coverage -- is much more appropriate than a trivial detail alluding to a make-believe thing. I question whether this whole thing needs to be spun out from the article on the underlying work ... but, if so, better to frame it in terms of the overall speech than the piddling made-up place it mentions offhand. --EEMIV (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Move was bound to be controversial and should have been discussed - especially since the previous discussion was keep in preference to merge or delete. As for the merits of the move, we should keep it at Tannhauser gate - that is the phrase that has been picked up in the literature, films, games etc -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support page move. We don't write articles about allusions. We write articles about the work ("Tears in Rain") that alludes to the reference ("Tannhauser gate"). If an article is needed about Tannhauser gate, then we would create a redirect to the original text that makes use of it, which has already been made in our article about Tannhäuser and Venusberg, as only two examples. The notable topic in this article is not the allusion to the reference, but the work itself. And this conclusion is supported by the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's naming conventions say that we should use a subject's most common title for the article title. In this case, it would be "Tears in Rain," would it not? – Richard BB 01:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support page move – this article is clearly about the soliloquy. Tannhauser Gate should be a redirect to the brief section presently at Tannhauser_Gate#Tannhauser_Gate (or someone should split out a 'Tannhauser Gate' article). Occuli (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the section is notable enough for its own article: but I do agree with you that "Tannhauser Gate" should redirect to the specific section in the article. – Richard BB 14:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support page move - I came here by accident today. The whole speech is notable, and the article is currently about it, so the title should reflect that. Paul B (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

....So, it's been a while since anyone's chimed in, and consensus appears to support moving this article to Tears in the rain soliloquy or some such. Yes? Any last-minute overwhelming opposition? --EEMIV (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done, seeing as this has been stale for two weeks now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Allusions proposal

I question the usefulness of an "allusions"/homages section. Still, it's here. I propose that "allusions" not be listed unless

  • a cited third-party source indicates that the supposed allusion is a deliberate reference to this soliloquy (I see two allusions that clear this bar) and/or
  • significant (I know, subjective) parts of the soliloquy itself are used (this would cover the sampling at Owen Wilson quoting it in some movie).

Beyond that, this listy format just doesn't work -- it doesn't read. I propose e.g. the following:

Other works and media reference the soliloquy. A character in Thomas Pynchon's Mason & Dixon (1997) says he has "look'd on Worlds far distant, their Beauty how pitiless", evoking the similar lines in the soliloquy.[1] The actual speech is repeated in whole or in part by characters in the novel And Another Thing..., the webcomic Darths & Droids, the television show Venture Brothers, and the film Drillbit Taylor.[citation needed] A reference to Tannhäuser Gate in Soldier (1998) links that film to Blade Runner.[2] Rutger Hauer's speech is sampled in the song "Tears in Rain" by The Retrosic, in the song "Rain" by Horsepower Productions, and in a song titled "Attack Ships on Fire" by London Elektricity.

Feedback? --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In general that's how all fictional / pop culture references should be handled. It's just significantly more work than spamming an article with bullet points. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I just enjoy presenting my thoughts as wholly original ;-). --EEMIV (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • List formats with an appropriate heading structure are superior to a block paragraph for reading comprehension. For example, see this study. A narrative paragraph would only be more appropriate if there was a flowing narrative linking these different allusions. That's a dangerous approach because it tends to encourage improper synthesis. For example, in Viriditas' draft: "Critics often use this scene to compare Batty to the Creature in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, observing that Batty's speech alludes to the last words of the Creature...". You can certainly find good examples of such comparisons but should we generalise to say that they are commonplace? Warden (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If the examples in question cannot be shown, by reliable secondary sources, to have some impact on popular perception of the subject, then they do not belong in the article in the first place. That's the acid test for whether a pop culture section actually belongs in an article. Comprehension of individual items in the list is less important here than the general theme, much as individual movie reviews are not so important in an article on a film as the overall impression. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So -- any opposition to replacing the indiscriminate bulleted list with e.g. the text above? --EEMIV (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Woohoo. What a significant win for the quality of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Frank Palmeri (2009), "Renvisioning history in Pynchon's Mason & Dixon", The Multiple Worlds of Pynchon's Mason & Dixon, p. 191, ISBN 9781571134110
  2. ^ Allon, Yoram; Del Cullen, Hannah Patterson. Contemporary North American film directors, ISBN 978-1903364529, p.14, "the two movies are connected by a single passing reference to Tannhauser Gate."

Soliloquy or Monologue?

According to the definition of Soliloquy it is a speech where a character speaks to himself and "Other characters however are not aware of what is being said" thus I think Monologue would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.246.17 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. It's very clearly a monologue, not a soliloquy. I'll make the change. --Cyde Weys 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast. Wikipedia's definition might not be precise enough. Look at this definition:

an utterance or discourse by a person who is talking to himself or herself or is disregardful of or oblivious to any hearers present (often used as a device in drama to disclose a character's innermost thoughts)

- Dictionary.com

I would say the Tears scene fits this definition. Since things aren't clear-cut, and, more importantly, since the quoted source does call it a soliloquy, I'll revert the language used on this page. However, I won't revert the creation of new pages, since monologue certainly isn't wrong.

Before you make any further changes, please be sure to check with further sources. After all, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. In plain text: we should call Batty's speech what our sources call it, not what we as editors think is appropriate.

CapnZapp (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Any seasoned WP contributor knows, sources are not necessarily the be-all, end-all of information - they are also not always accurate. Many situations require that contributors come to a consensus, or otherwise use common sense. Such should be the case here: a soliloquy is, as defined, a speech made to oneself irrespective of the listeners. As the "Tears in the rain" monologue is specifically directed at Deckard, it is not a soliloquy. The cited source utilizes the term incorrectly; that mistake should not be reflected in an encyclopedic article. Zargabaath(talk) 16:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory Channel 4 references

The reference in this article to 105 minutes into the Channel 4 documentary appears to be at odds with a reference to the same documentary in the main Blade Runner article, which suggests that documentary is 55 minutes long. Does this matter to anyone? 123.2.12.182 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned only once.....?

Why is it significant that the name "Tannhauser Gate" is used only once in the soliloquy? How many times would we expect a placename (or whatever it is) to be mentioned in a soliloquy that's only five sentences long.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

agree - once is not a valid argument in filmic terms & likely comes from ghits basis which is only validation for notability of the article itself. Manytexts (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Tannhauser gate section which says "...this unexplained placename which is used only once in the film"?

Because if you are, what is the problem? That TG is mentioned only once is fact reporting, not some way of establishing significance. It is mentioned in order to help the reader understand the mystery surrounding the name, why people are drawn to it and find it poetic.

It's not that it is used only once in the soliloquy, its that it is used only once in the entire movie. CapnZapp (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

At the time I posted the original comment above, the article stated "Tannhauser Gate, Tannhäuser Gate and Tanhauser Gate are variant spellings of this unexplained placename which is used only once in this monologue." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

mentioned in xkcd

References in other media should probably now also list it is mentioned in the alt text of todays xkcd. http://xkcd.com/1353/ Mathiastck (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

References in other media should probably be deleted in it's entirety, and xkcd itself makes a good case for why these sections are useless here. See also WP:XKCD. Plantdrew (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Elite: Dangerous reference in "other media"

Sorry all, I'm not a Wikipedia editor so don't know the processes for this, but I have an addition for the "other media" section. The video game Elite: Dangerous has a Tannhauser Gate (no umlaut) which is a space station that players can visit and dock their ships. A non-primary source for this includes this page, a player-created database of planets and stations: http://eddb.io/station/5977 Not sure if it's notable enough, but it's a popular game, and clearly an example of other media making reference to this famous monologue. 121.214.130.99 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition to Category:Death in fiction

Hello fellow Wikipedians - I added this article to Category:Death in fiction, but it was reverted.

As I write this, the last sentence of the opening paragraph of this article reads:

University of Miami Professor of Philosophy and cultural critic Mark Rowlands has called the monologue "perhaps the most moving death soliloquy in cinematic history."

Thus, I believe it is appropriately included in the above category. Any opinions on this from the group? Thanks to all for all of your work to make WP great. KConWiki (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That category is, to my mind, simply too vague. Is there something more specific that would be appropriate? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Category:Films about death? I don't know, it's a mayor theme in the movie, but this article is about an specific scene. I think "death in fiction" is an adequate category. Or how about Category:Poems about death, would it be too much of a stretch? Diego (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I returned to this page to add something unrelated to this category, but I would like to give the category another try. I have essentially the same rationale now as I did in October of 17 for adding it. Let's discuss here if needed. KConWiki (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Other media

Tannhäuser gate is also mentioned in Soldier (1998 american film) and Gunbuster anime. In latter as 'Tannaeuser Gate' — a discovery of phisics scientist R. Tannaeuser (according to 'Gunbuster Sience Course Spetial 01'). Dieſelmaus (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Grubdon (talk · contribs) has been trying to add a reference to its use in Mortal Combat 11 (one example is here) with a link to https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/mortal-kombat-11-easter-eggs-and-references-the-be/2900-2726/15/. I don't even know if the site is a reliable source, but it certainly doesn't seem to be one. Even if it is, The only thing in that reference is "When fighting Geras, Johnny Cage can give a nod to the famous “Tears In Rain” monologue delivered by the character Roy Batty at the end of the original Blade Runner movie", but nothing to support the direct quotes. We get it, the monologue is inspirational and will be used in many sci-fi sources, but it should really be a notable use or the article will become a WP:COATRACK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Notable references

We seem to have some confusion about what constitutes notability. In short, if it covered by a source other than the subject, such as "Swedish band Kent" who use lines from the monologue in "Rollercoaster", from their 2000 album Hagnesta Hill "Rollercoaster". KENT.NU — TIDIGARE OFFICIELL HEMSIDA FÖR SVERIGES STÖRSTA ROCKBAND. Retrieved August 31, 2020. While the album charted ("Kent - Hagnesta Hill (album)". Swedishcharts.com. Retrieved September 1, 2020.) in Scandinavia, the song did not. That does not seem notable to me. As I mentioned in one of my reverts of the editor who added and is re-adding the content, I have an album that samples heavily from the film in general, but listing any song from the album would be improper as none of the songs charted. We do not want a WP:COATRACK of subjects that mention it, allude to it, or sample from it. We do not want this to become an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tears_in_rain_monologue/Archive_1&oldid=1140548152"