Talk:The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film)
|WikiProject Film||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Trains / Rapid transit / in New York City||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject New York City / Public Transportation||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Why is there no mention of Vincent D'Onofrio or the other hijackers?--Biohazard 10:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No mention of Beasty Boys reference (In one of their songs.) and the influence on the movie resivoirs dogs (Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink, etc.)
The film differs greatly from the book
I was forced to erase some parts of the page for the original book, because someone thought to be smart and copied facts from the film to the book, that wasn't in the book. The codenames as mr Blue was not in the book, not was the Garber character. I replaced some missing parts with bad english.
As I wrote, I write very bad english, so someone else may change the text of the book.
- Garber was in the book, but in a very small role, as a subordinate of Lieutenant Prescott, the main Transit Authority officer. He was only in one scene that I recall, informing Prescott of the hijacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- They're not terrorists, only kidnappers for ransom; they don't care about terrorizing anyone, they care about getting the money. Of course, these days, the term "terrorist" has been hugely devalued by the US government and media.
- Atlant 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
24 hour clock
The books pages has:
"*In real radio communications among the New York City Transit Authority's train crews, a 24 hour clock is used. Technically, this would have made the title train "Pelham 1323"
This is true nowadays, however when the film was made, the 12hr clock was still in use."
-I have removed the relevant comment from here. -- Beardo 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Taking of pelham one two three.jpg
Image:Taking of pelham one two three.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Removal of hatnote
This is from my talk page:
I have taken pains to make sure that no ambiguous articles point to The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), meaning that there is no reason for the hatnote. WP:NAMB clearly indicates that in the case of an unambiguous title (such as the article in question), a hatnote should not be used. If I am missing a viable reason why that hatnote should stay that does not violate WP:HAT, please let me know. Otherwise, without a good reason to keep the hatnote, I will remove it in a couple of days. Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
To me, the usefulness of the hatnote to our readers is intuitively obvious. It's much more important to the project to ask "Is this useful?" than "Does this conform to the rules?" Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Despite what I said on ANI, I'm reasonably fine with having no hatnote on this article. The other films and novel are clearly noted in the article text, and a typical user of the encyclopedia is (IMO) unlikely to type in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) if they are searching for the film...choosing instead The Taking of Pelham 123 or spelling the numbers out. If as Rhindle says, that there are no direct ambiguous article links to this page, then the hatnote is redundant to the body text. I just created The Taking of Pelham 123 (film) as a redirect to the dab page, as that is a likely choice for a search target. It is arguably of more use to have the hatnote when two minutes of reading (less if people look at the TOC) shows the two other films and the novel. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I routinely remove these unnecessary hatnotes because they violate the point of hatnotes; to help people get where they mean to go. There are at least two specifically spelled out incorrect usages here. As has been pointed out, this is clearly not an ambiguous title. Using a hatnote here is also a case of "Legitimate information about the topic" (referred to as "a typical and highly improper misuse of disambiguating hatnotes"). It may also fall under "articles that are highly related to the topic". Clearly the guidelines indicate no reason for a hatnote. You have failed to articulate a reason for an exception in this case. "It's useful." isn't good enough. Why is it useful, given the fact that it violates the guidelines intended to indicate the use of hatnotes? And comments like this  are not helpful. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'll swap those last two. It *is* more likely "highly related" and *may be* "legitimate information". Not the other way around. Rhindle The Red (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
123 vs 1 2 3
It's one two three not one hundred twenty three. Sources such as amazon, imdb, release posters, media and other sources use the break/space between the digits which is how it's said (like counting). Thanks! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)