 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 20 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here. |
[edit] Trilogies not an exception? I've restored the wording that allows trilogies as an exception, since its removal has not been discussed here. If this is practise is being challenged, then we're going to have to reconsider the contents of Cat:Film trilogies, as well as others such as The Hobbit film duology. PC78 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC) - The word duology or trilogy in an article title about a film series limits the article and should not be allowed under any circumstance. It also really really really makes it hard to make templates, use the pipe trick, etc. I would not want to have to look up the hundreds of film series out there if I were making a template for them. I don't even think redirects should be allowed from a (film series) article to a numerated one. Those words should only be used as descriptors in the articles themselves, easily removed when a studio orders yet the eighth installment in a "trilogy." The cat mentioned should be deleted as there is a list already in place for them, and there are no other similar cats for the other film series by how many films are in them. Also, all the articles with the word trilogy in should be renamed post haste to get rid of that blasted word. I tried once, but cruft prevailed in that instance. The worst was at the Lord of the Rings. The book series is a pentalogy, not a trilogy, so the film series could be a pentalogy one day as well. Let's get the articles named with something generic and allow for growth instead of clinging to the word trilogy as if it were sacred.
- And I am sorry for the tone of this, but this is a long standing issue that always bothers me when it pops up. LA @ 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- In what way does use of the word trilogy or duology "limit the article"? In what way is it "hard to make templates" or "use the pipe trick"? When (if) a film series ceases to be a trilogy, then the article can simply be renamed. I'm not sure I see the problem. The Vengeance Trilogy (for example) is routinely refered to by that name – there is no suitable alternative. We're not in the buisness of inventing names for things. PC78 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think it depends on the film series itself. Theoretically, there are only 3 Lord of the Rings books, and thus it would be understandable to say "Lord of the Rings trilogy" (though personally, I think "Lord of the Ring (film series)" works just as well). With The Hobbit, that's more of their choice to do 2 movies, and since it's only a single book to start with they could easily do more if they so choosed. Personally, I don't think there needs to be a "Hobbit duology" page anyway. What exactly on there cannot be covered on The Hobbit (2010 film)? If they are making one large movie and splitting it up, then it should just be The Hobbit. If they are making two separate movies (with two separate stories), then they should have two separate pages. Notice how Kill Bill doesn't have two separate pages, nor is it called "Kill Bill duology". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- PC78, the words duology and trilogy are finite in this situation. A duology is 2, and a trilogy is 3. There is no room in the article for any subsequent entries to the series.
- The pipe trick is a great thing. If a film series is named with (film series), and all I want to show up is just the subject name, all I would have to type is
[[Subject (film series)|]] instead of [[Subject film series|Subject]]. Also, it would make finding articles about film series a lot easier. All I would need to know is the subject, then type Subject (film series) in the search box. So, if I wanted to find the article on the Children of the Corn, (there isn't one, btw) I would type Children of the Corn (film series) in the search box. However, if the series article had the numerated name, I would be lost. Most wouldn't know to search for Children of the Corn heptalogy. Also, what happens if the series got another entry? It would have to be renamed to Children of the Corn octology. After that, Children of the Corn ennealogy then Children of the Corn decology. - So, since we don't have crystal balls and can't know if a series is really complete, I say stick with the generic name by the series name or series subject. LA @ 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fully aware of what trilogy and duology mean; the words may indeed be finite, but they can simply be changed when (more likely if) they no longer apply; I don't know why you see this as such a great hardship. No, we don't have crystal balls, so just as we don't know if a film series is really complete, we also don't know that it isn't. But many film series are pre-planned as trilogies these days.
- I actually didn't know about the pipe trick (you really do learn something new each day), but that's hardly a reason in itself; on the contrary, it might be preferable to have a non-disambiguated article title. Nobody is seriously suggesting that we use heptalogy, octology etc., so your argument there seems rather fallacious – the guideline specifically states "trilogy" as the exception. As Bignole suggests above, this is probably something that should be determined on a case by case basis. PC78 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- One other thing, I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes looking for a film series article if it doesn't exist. I am on dial-up so all Wiki pages load extremely slow. Having to search for just the right title is a nightmare. If I want to read about the Spider-Man film series, I will put Spider-Man (film series) in the box; if I want to read about the Anne of Green Gables film series, I will put Anne of Green Gables (film series) in the box; if I want to read about the Hot Shots film series, I will put Hot Shots (film series) in the box. That way they are all named the same so that they can be found the same way. Also, making templates which deal with film series would be a lot easier if all I had to type was
{{#ifexist:{{{subject}}} (film series)|display some code|display some other code}} To use it, all editors would have to do is know the subject and not have to search for what the film series article is named. The more alike the names are, the better for everyone. LA @ 02:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (outdent) I don't necessarily think that we should be using the word "trilogy" in article titles, I'm just not sold on your reasons why we shouldn't. We certainly shouldn't be (re)naming articles because it's conveniant for piping links or creating hypothetical templates. Not everyone is going to search for articles the same way as you; we have redirects for a reason, you know. ;) I agree with most of what Bignole said above, that "Lord of the Rings (film series)" works just as well as "Lord of the Rings film trilogy" (or whatever), but it's not going to work in every case. It's going to require a measure of common sense. PC78 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Televison films disambiguation Frequently in the news media a distinction is made between a made for television movie and films. Made for television films are often failed pilots, or films shot with a restricted visual format for television (probably less so now with HDTV). It would be helpful if this there could be a section on how such films are usually named on Wikipedia. For example at the moment there are two articles The Incident (film) and The Incident (TV movie) as it is probably less informative to name them "The Incident (1967 film)" and The incident (1990 film)" than to stick with the current names. However if they are usually named by (year film) for disambiguation, then specific mention of that in this guideline would also be useful as guidance. --PBS (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) It would probably be useful if there was also a suggestion of what to do if a film is made to go direct-to-video and needs disambiguation. If it is normal to simply use (year film) or some other naming convention --PBS (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) - Per WP:NC-TV, television movies are disambiguated as (film). No reason to treat direct-to-video films any differently, either. I agree that it may be worthwhile adding some clarification here, though. PC78 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think clarification will help, too. Should we say so in the lead section, or will it be better under "Between films of the same name" (where we can say to use (XXXX TV film) if necessary)? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of maybe slotting something like this between "From other topics" and "Between films of the same name": Between types of film
When disambiguation is necessary, all films should be treated equally. No distinction is usually made between different types of film, e.g. animated films, silent films, short films, independent films, television movies, direct-to-video films, etc. If there are no other films of the same name, the title of the article should be Film Title (film). For example: Not sure if I'm entirely happy with that, though; it might fit in better if the whole section was given a bit of a reshuffle. I'll have another look at it tommorrow, unless anyone else comes up with something in the meantime. PC78 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Disambiguating by release year Currently, WP:NCF says, "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of original release as indicated by IMDb." Relying on IMDb is problematic because the website marks the release year based on the first film festival release. I believe that this is misleading because festival screenings are not sufficiently wide enough; they more serve as stepping stones toward an actual theatrical release. It can also be misleading. For example, for the film 300, it is identified as a 2006 film because it screened at a film festival in December 2006 before being commercially released in March 2007. Publications have perceived 300 as a 2007 film, contrary to how IMDb marks it. Yet another issue, the reason why I bring this here, is that The Fall (2006 film) should be a 2008 film. It crept through a few film festivals in 2006 and 2007, but it ultimately became released in 2008. I suggest re-wording the WP:NCF sentence to say, "...add the year of the film's initial limited or wide release." Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC) - Certainly the reference to IMDb should be struck from this page. I'm a bit fuzzy on festival screenings and how they apply both here and with regards to Future-Class assessments, though. What about films that have screened at festivals but haven't yet (and might not) receive a public release? PC78 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- Films that have only screened at film festivals to date are considered future films. I have not really followed up with any films that screened at a festival but never had a public release. (BTW, "public release" sounds like better phrasing... perhaps "initial public release (limited or wide)"?) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- A film can't stay as a future film forever though, there has to be some kind of cut off point if a public release is not forthcoming. I guess it's something that applies more to indie or short films. The only example I have handy is Sa-kwa, a film which screened at festivals in 2005 but then got shelved and eventually looked like it would never get released. Even a few months ago I had the article categorised as an "unreleased film", before it got an out-of-the-blue theatrical release towards the end of last year. The question of whether or not we use festival release dates is certainly something which I feel needs some kind of discussion. In the meantime, I'm going to remove that mention of IMDb; pros and cons of the site aside, there's no reason at all why we shouldn't reference other sources for dates. PC78 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think that films that never have a public release are rare cases. My suggestion: "When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its public release, whether limited or wide. In rare cases when films do not screen outside of film festivals, the year of its first festival screening can instead be added." Any tweaking we need? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It sounds good to me, I'd maybe shorten it to: "When disambiguating films of the same name, use the year of its first public release. Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening." I think this retains the full meaning of your version despite the omissions. Do you think we should add something to the first sentence (of either version) to cover future films? After that, I suppose the only situation that the guideline doesn't cover is a film that did not have a public release or a festival release, yet is still notable in some way, and shares a title with another film. Though that would be so rare an occurrence that I think we can safely deal with those on a case-by-case basis (e.g. Broken (Nine Inch Nails film)—though I think this should perhaps use the year of production). Steve T • C 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I think that Broken (Nine Inch Nails film) can be moved to Broken (1993 film). We can describe the 1993 film and the 2007 film on the disambiguation page. For covering future films, we could encourage the year as verified by a reliable source. If there is no such reliable source, we can point to IMDb as a placeholder and request a move later. See Talk:The Wrestler (2008 film)#Release year, for example. Is that what you were thinking, Steve? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, something like that. Though on a second look at the proposed wording above, I think year of intended release is already covered by "use the year of its first public release"—it doesn't specify past or future. If no intended release date is listed by a more reliable source, IMDb or equivalent will have to do. It shouldn't come up too often that it causes a problem. (Agree about the Broken pagemove btw; as I say, this is going to be so rare an occurrence we can deal with those as they come up). Steve T • C 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- This guideline needs to clarify whether "public release" includes film festivals unless the film in question only premiered at a film festival. Saying "public release" is just too confusing as it can be interpreted as a film festival.Copana2002 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] capitalisation What about cases like sex, lies, and videotape? --Espoo (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC) - WP:MOSTM Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Should we add "Each word in a film title takes an initial capital, even if the official title does not... This does not apply to non-English titles." to the beginning? --Espoo (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- What's your reasoning? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the lead should refer to WP:MOSTM for such cases. I don't see need to do any more. PC78 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Original vs DVD titles When a theatrically released film is retitled for DVD release, which is the correct name for its article: the original theatrical title, or the DVD title? The specific example I have in mind is The Miracle Match, an article using the DVD title of a film originally released as The Game of Their Lives. My instinct is that the article should be at the original title--disambiguated to (2005 film) as there is a 2002 film with the same title. But I didn't find any guidance in the naming conventions.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] List of awards and nominations received by (Actor/Film) Through discussion at FLC, there seems to be a precident for naming award lists in the form above. This is as part of a standardisation across musician and television series awards following previous discussion and more recent discussion. After I moved a list today Diaa abdelmoneim has requested that I let you all know so that this can be noted in the relevent place. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [edit] Use (director) or (film) or (filmmaking) Hi,
A disambiguation is needed for the same name of two persons. One is a filmdirector. What is to be used: - Jean van de Velde (director)
- Jean van de Velde (film)
- Or maybe (filmdirector) not TV, (filmmaking)?
The other name is Jean Van de Velde, a golfer. Qualification is not needed here (is/stays main title for that name, can get a hat etc. per MOS:DAB) -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC) - Jean van de Velde (director) is appropriate. "(film)" would only be used for individual films, such as to disambiguate Fight Club (film) from Fight Club. "(filmmaking)" is used for "general concepts related to film technology, terminology, and industry". Hope that helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, it helps (confirmed as understood it), thanx. The link will be blue within a minute from now. -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...Since Tall tale exists as a type of story; shouldn't the movie be called Tall Tale (film) instead of the current Tall Tale.... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC) [edit] Regarding the word "duology" Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22. Dcoetzee 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Film titles with punctuation Recently, there were two films whose titles ended with punctuation, and their Wikipedia articles used the same punctuation. Discussion took place to move the articles to titles without the punctuation (Adaptation. → Adaptation (film) and Good Night, and Good Luck. → Good Night, and Good Luck), both with the caveat of mentioning the particular formatting in the lead sentence. These films aren't the only ones to use punctuation and special characters, so I am wondering if WP:NCF needs a section about how to handle such titles. Here are some other tricky examples: Is there any kind of general criteria we can put forth, applying MOS:TM and other guidelines? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC) - I think there needs to be some recognition of the fact that promotional orthography essentially is no different from the MOSTM. And at the end of the day, the general NC rules need to apply - most references use When Harry Met Sally, not When Harry Met Sally...; Crocodile Dundee, not "Crocodile" Dundee; etc. There may be some notable exceptions, but I can't think of these offhand. Most of this, in my view, extends from a faulty assumption of precision as our overriding principle of the NCs, and this would be demonstrably incorrect. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what you mean by the last sentence. Are you saying that guidelines are not needed? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly not needed...between the general NC's title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article and avoid over-precision, alongside more or less all of MOSTM (specifically, Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official" and Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words, as well as Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context). I'm not saying that we shouldn't rehash this, though - having a central place to figure out how to title your film article is easier than asking people to read two more guidelines. I'm just saying that we don't need to invent or justify anything new here - the existing guidelines already support us, so let's summarize and link to them. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to link to MOS:TM. Would you say [{WP:COMMONNAME]] applies, too? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wish Wikipedia would use the proper names of things rather than reproduce common erroneous names. "Promotional orthography" one could perhaps ignore (posters, videoboxes, etc.); IMDb's policy [1] is to use as the main title the title as it appears onscreen in the movie, at least insofar as it can be rendered in standard text. Punctuation, accents, certain foreign alphabetical characters, unusual capitalization are reproduced. Symbols are not: I Heart Huckabees, Pi. Colors, specific fonts, etc. are not. That strikes me as fairly sensible. Шизомби (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME needs to be considered, though. For titles like Adaptation. and Good Night, and Good Luck., the punctuation is nearly always dropped when discussed in secondary sources. Same with WALL-E and When Harry Met Sally, though I am less sure about (500) Days of Summer. Ebert said in his review, "The movie’s poster insists the title is '(500) Days of Summer.' Led by Variety, every single film critic whose review I could find has simply ignored that punctuation. Good for them." (Though I've found a few reviews that use "(500)"). —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I wish it were easier to investigate the history of a policy, so one could determine why so manifestly stupid an idea was adopted. An encyclopedia should be concerned with accuracy not perpetuating common errors. Sigh. At least COMMONNAME allows for other naming conventions to give a different indication. We can see to it that the film naming convention, if nothing else on Wikipedia, does it right. Шизомби (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you say that COMMONNAME perpetuates common errors? It's commonplace for the popular names (in terms of ease of writing) to be used for articles, and the lead sentence identifies the full form. (This is widespread with BLP articles.) The films whose titles are in question have common names which are much easier to reiterate throughout the article body. We're not warping the title to be more misleading; we're going the other direction, to simplify such usage. The lead sentence is where the formatting can be identified (such as Seven (film) or Alien 3), and the article can continue with usage of the more convenient common name. Not sure why we cannot accomplish it this way. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Re-opening the trilogy debate from above Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Trilogies_not_an_exception.3F - I think the word "trilogy" is overused. It seems to be employed any time a film series reaches three: Spy Kids and Scream are examples of film franchises that just happen to have reached three, rather than to be an bona fide "trilogy", like say Lord of the Rings. In fact it is debatable whether The Matrix is a trilogy as the second and third films were only made due to the success of the first film. For these reasons I think that trilogy should be avoided except in extreme cases where there is no debate. Generally, any film trilogy would count as a film series, but not every film series (with three films) is a trilogy. Therefore think the wording needs to be strengthened to discourage the use of "trilogy", whilst still allowing it in exceptional circumstances. This of course leaves a separate case for thematic film "trilogies" which do not form series, which given the looseness of their nature are often called different things by different people, and are sometimes disputed. For example, Ingmar Bergman's so called "faith trilogy", which has been described by critics and marketed as such but not confirmed as a "trilogy" by the director. I guess these have to be named trilogies, but we should be very careful that these are properly referenced. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
|
