Talk:Beaches (1988 film)

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

Untitled[edit]

A "chick" movie starring Bette Midler and Barbara Hershey. Contains all the classic things that make up a chick movie. Love lost, jealousy, marriage, children, and a heart wrenching death.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamal M (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spoiler warning, MIGHTY big of you. Pshhh, I added some just now JayKeaton 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Why do all cultural references to this film have to be removed. Do some people have nothing better to do than just go around deleting references because THEY find it irrelevant? Cattona (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual arguments are presented at WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV. -Verdatum (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wish the credits showed the cited the house of Hillary and her father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.86.223 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cult[edit]

No mention that it has a cult following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.63.3 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Beaches (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Beaches (film) → Beaches (1988 film) – There is more than one film with the title Beaches that has an article. Per WP:PRIMARYFILM, as this is not the primary topic of "Beaches", it needs to be disambiguated with release year against the other films. See Parasite (film) for a similar discussion, and long-standing consensus at Titanic (film). BOVINEBOY2008 10:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and WP:NCF. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Beaches is a variation of the primary topic beach, like most (if not all) pluralized terms. That being the case, any non-beach topic called "Beaches" should be considered secondary and disambiguated, including from other secondary topics. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, Lugnuts, Erik and Ortizesp. No incomplete disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. This film is by far the primary topic, indicated by 90% of the pageviews. There's already a hatnote pointing to the only other film with the same title, so no benefit to anyone by moving it. The move of Parasite has resulted in ~39 readers per day being unnecessarily diverted to a dab page from the article they want. Station1 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this film was the primary topic, it would simply be at Beaches. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to that. The film gets more pageviews than Beach. But I'm not proposing a move, just opposing a totally unnecessary one. The recent RfC confirms that there is consensus that a topic with a parenthetical qualifier can be a primary topic, and the pageviews are convincing in this case, that this film is the clear primary topic between the two films with articles. Station1 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone going to total the amount of times Station1 was told that at RMs in 2020? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says. WP:SNOW and speedy close; per nom and WP:NCF. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Station1. When an English speaker around the world uses the word "beaches" in the plural and the context reveals that they are not talking about actual beaches in the aggregate (the kind made of sand), they are nearly always referring to this iconic film (because Midler's performance makes it so memorable notwithstanding its otherwise mediocre quality). Anyone who disagrees probably didn't grow up listening to the radio--Midler's rendition of Wind Beneath My Wings was a staple of pop radio stations well into the mid-2000s, and is still played from time to time on oldies stations. Indeed, the very first book returned by Google Books when one searches on the word "beaches" is the novel on which this film was based. As User:Lugnuts has correctly conceded above, this article should be titled Beaches. I would support a move to that entirely appropriate title. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought of an easy way to prove this point. Search YouTube for "beaches." The first results that come up that are not about actual beaches are either clips from this film (especially the famous scene near the end at the beach house when Midler glances back at Hershey with an alarmed look) or clips of music videos of songs that are often on the same playlists as Wind Beneath My Wings. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google is mixed but returns more results for the landform but Images and Books only returns the landform which is clearly primary if anything by long-term significance, I'd be fine with having no primary topic (by redirecting "Beaches" to Beach (disambiguation) or making it a separate DAB) but the 1988 film isn't primary per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term significance? Most educated native English speakers (unless they were raised by wolves or live in a shed like the Unabomber) can immediately respond with "it must have been cold there in my shadow" when prompted by the world-famous notes of the intro of Wind Beneath My Wings. Google Books returns the novel on which the film was based as the very first result. If that's not long-term significance, it's unclear if anything would have long-term significance in your view unless it operates on the geologic time scale. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most educated native English speakers would at least expect a DAB at "Beaches", everyone knows what the landform is while many man not have even heard of the film (I hadn't) and when I put beaches into Google Books all the results are for the landform. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which reinforces my point that the article should be titled Beaches. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Station1's pageviews, 38,284 v 4,327 isn't enough for a PADB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCF. Pageviews aren't high enough for PDAB as stated above, and the film is not the WP:PTOPIC as Beaches also widely refers to the landform. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The page view difference isn't enough to meet the higher threshold necessary for partially disambiguated "primary" status. kennethaw88 • talk 16:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beaches_(1988_film)&oldid=1206204510"