Jump to content

Talk:A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959)

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


Opinion

[edit]
Resolved
 – Just noise.

The Orginial episode was a classic!! The alterative episode was lame!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.164 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Dancemotron (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not noise, sir! I am a human being! I AM A MAN! ~ Dancemotron (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are also not a number, you are a free man! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu mythos reference?

[edit]

If i remember correctly there was a reference to the cthulhu mythos with the name of the location let me check —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.79.107 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shub-Internet ate the soul of the anon before they could get back to us about that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

"This is the last original Twilight Zone episode where the only characters visibly seen (Jack Klugman and Jonathan Winters) are still alive in real life (as of February 2010)."

What about episode The Last Night of a Jockey? Mickey Rooney is still alive as of April 2010 and is the only character / actor visible in the whole episode.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.186.34 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is Ann Blyth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.72.154 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2017

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) and A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985). Consensus is clear, and the need to reference the specific series rather than the episode year is well said. "(The Twilight Zone, 1959 series)" might also have worked for this purpose. I have also applied this outcome to the "Shadow Play" episodes. bd2412 T 15:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Awkward and weird; there must be a better way to do this, but I don't spend enough time on TV articles to be sure what the proper disambiguation pattern is for such a case. My initial guess is "(The Twilight Zone, 1961)". I hope it's not something even worse like "(The Twilight Zone (1961) episode)".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the two pages be moved to something like "(19XX episode)"? Possibly even "(The Twilight Zone, 19XX)"? This one's kinda challenging. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a conflict between WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. The consistent pattern seems to be to disambiguate by show, so just date would be an inconsistent DAB. But we have two shows with the same name and episodes with same name in each show, so the consistent DAB will not be very concise. The current names are just awful, since the DAB order is reversed, there is no punctuation, and a capital-T is used in mid-phrase.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support A Game of Pool (1961 episode) and A Game of Pool (1989 episode), per WP:CONCISE. And whatever the outcome of that, then the same can be applied to Shadow Play (1961 The Twilight Zone episode) and Shadow Play (1986 The Twilight Zone episode) too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.