Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (films): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:45, 11 March 2015 editLugnuts (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers1,509,055 edits Undid revision 650890147 by 174.141.182.82 (talk) rv WP:DE← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:37, 4 October 2024 edit undoVid2vid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,051 edits →How to properly disambiguate films from the same year?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
(537 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Sidebar}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Film}} {{WikiProject Film}}
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=20|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot II}}
{{archives|index=./Archive index|auto=yes}} {{archives|search=yes|index=./Archive index|auto=long|bot=MiszaBot II|age=20|minthreadsleft=10}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(20d) |algo = old(20d)
Line 13: Line 14:
}} }}


== Misplaced Pages has articles on films not movies ==
== Placement of alternate titles ==

I have a question regarding the lead of the article ]. It is most known as Taare Zameen Par, and was released in cinemas worldwide under that foreign title. However, the international DVD release years later titled it as "Like Stars on Earth". All of the English sources used (except for ones related to the DVD release) refer to it under the foreign title.

The guideline for alternate titles says to put them in the first or second sentence, but I wanted to know if everyone agreed that exceptions can exist. The lead sentence of the article currently gives the foreign title with an English translation ("Stars on Earth"). Since the DVD release of the film was a big deal and is detailed in the lead, I felt for the sake of flow (and to avoid repetition) that it made most sense to put the alternate title there. Thanks. ]]] 01:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

:Just going by the information you have given me (that the film was released theatrically everywhere as ''Taare Zameen Par'', and ''Like Stars on Earth'' was ONLY used for the DVD release) I would say the naming guideline does not actually apply to this case. The guideline is for ''alternative'' titles not ''format'' titles. For instance we don't include ''Blade Runner: The Director's Cut'' in the lede because it is a format title for a film that was originally released everywhere as ''Blade Runner'', the same goes for numerous other home video releases. The MOS is not explicitly clear about this so someone may have a different take on the matter, but I think giving the DVD only title in the context of the actual DVD release is fine. ] (]) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

::'''''Like Stars on Earth''''' is the title the film is currently released on DVD, on streaming sites, for broadcasts and whatever else you can think of. It is the title most recognizable to English-speakers in the English-speaking world and absolutely must be mentioned in the first sentence. ] (]) 20:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Care to provide sources for any of these claims? An entire move discussion that you are well aware of completely disagrees with you. ]]] 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

== Between films of the same name ==

{{user link|Betty Logan}} expanded the "Between films of the same name" section , but it was reverted by {{user link|Dicklyon}} . His edit summary: ''"Yes, I'm very unhappy with the rewrite based on the presumption that a primarytopic usually exists and is defined."'' It looks to me that Betty paraphrased the definition of a primary topic from ]. I do not think her wording means that we have to force a primary topic regardless. It defines a primary topic so we can know how to approach it. For example, despite several films titled ''Gladiator'', the primary topic is ]. Another example is ] being a disambiguation page for two films of the same name. Yet another one is '']'', which is considered the primary topic over the remake due to its sizable influence. Is this last one an example you disagree with? Please elaborate what you meant by your edit summary. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

:Betty's edit, in which she invited anyone who disagreed to revert, included the start, "The 'primary topic' for any given title is defined to be the topic which is most widely sought when a reader searches for that term, or if the topic has a significant long-standing association with that term." This immediately sounds like it presumes the existence of a primary topic, and then gives a mangled "definition". In fact, the whole concept of primary topic seems to be very much in question, and to the extent that it is discussed it certainly is not defined that way; it does not appear to have ever had any very broad discussion, in terms of how it fits into and supports title policy; and it is frequently over applied where it is inappropriate. Betty's phrasing would appear to encourage that. Among her examples were ]; I've already filed an RM to fix that, so if anyone besides Betty thought it was a sensible example, I'd like to know why. It would be much better to discuss how to disambiguate between films of the same title in general, and then note that in a few cases one film might be so much more important than another of the same name that it would be considered the primary topic; it seems to me this should be treated more as the exception than as the rule, and then some such exceptions can be pointed out and justified; perhaps ] is a legit example. ] (]) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

::I'm confused. Why do you consider the definition mangled? Betty's phrase "most widely sought when a reader searches for that term" goes with the definition of "usage" at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Her phrase "significant long-standing association with that term" goes with the definition of "long-term significance". Film guidelines are derived from general guidelines such as this one. I don't think she's out of line with what she wrote. Nor do I think it requires a primary topic; it just imports the definition for editors to read to apply to film guidelines. We can identify '']'' as an example of a film that is a primary topic that has its own host of secondary topics. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Primary topic is not a policy; it is one consideration among several, and in my view causes significantly more problems than it would ever solve. It has become a mantra for editors who think there's a quick and dirty algorithmic solution to every naming issue. ] ] 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Tony1}} Are you contesting these guidelines for determining a primary topic? What are the other considerations that have been discussed? Guidelines in general have caveats so there can be flexibility in discussions. Among films, it seems relatively simple to discern a primary topic based on prominence. It is the comparison of different subjects that I imagine makes primary-topic discussions tricky, such as dictionary terms. We may not be able to account for every case, but surely we can provide guidance for most of them. Are there any film-related cases that can serve as contrary examples? ] (] &#124; ]) 01:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::I'm trying to understand what sort of improvement the dissenters might have in mind. Betty's text doesn't seem controversial to me, although of course appearances can deceive. Even allowing for the purpose of argument that there is an assumption of the kind Dicklyon mentions, what is exactly the harm? If there is no primary topic issue to consider, there is no need for the guideline. When films have the same title, considerations of primacy are paramount, notwithstanding other non-film claimants to primacy. Betty seems to have accounted for this fairly deftly. So should the guideline instead direct the reader what to do if the guideline doesn't apply? I'm not clear on the nature of the objection. --] (]) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Comment''' @Dicklyon
*I only actually to the disambiguation guideline: ''The primary topic for any given title is defined to be the topic which is most widely sought when a reader searches for that term, or if the topic has a significant long-standing association with that term.'' We can easily drop that sentence if it is a disputed interpretation of what a primary topic is: my only intention is to lay out a process of applying disambiguation when it is decided it is required.
*I selected the Deep Throat example mainly because it was an example of where the film was most definitely ''not'' the primary topic, by virtue of the fact it was not the primary usage (i.e. the sex act) or had a longstanding historical association (i.e. Watergate). Even after the page move (if it goes ahead) it won't be the primary topic so it will still be disambiguated as ''Deep Throat (film)''. I don't really want to be sidetracked into a debate over examples when an ambiguous example can be replaced with an unambiguous one in less time than it has taken me to write this paragraph. If you have a more appropriate example then please feel free to suggest it.
] (]) 04:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
::Betty, first, the construct "... is defined to be ... or if ..." is mangled and non-parallel. But fixing it would still leave this as a trivialization of what ] says, which is not bad (except for how it gets badly interpreted sometimes). People tend to trivialize it already, and this would just make that worse. And you did add the Deep Throat example, which embodies a very poor choice of primary topic where there really is not one. I didn't really study the other examples to see if they were good or not, but I didn't see why you needed to add 4 kB if the point was to alert people about ]. ] (]) 06:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I am not suggesting fixing it, I am suggesting dropping the sentence for the moment if you disagree with the revision. If we drop the sentence then the naming convention has not been altered by me at all and the problem simply goes away. Also, I am not trying to alert editors about PRIMARYTOPIC, I am trying to address the process of disambiguation and the selection of disambiguators. Inparticular, I selected specific examples that highlight particular disambiguator selection in certain contexts that have emerged in film articles, and which I think editors will find helpful. For instance, we could simply replace ''Deep Throat (film)'' with ''Gone with the Wind (film)''. Would you object to the restoration of the examples section if we do that? ] (]) 06:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
::::I'm not against examples. The proposed examples section is a bit of mess in any case; why would you propose a section entitled "Confusion"? Maybe something like this:

;new proposed section (by Dicklyon) based on this discussion:
===Between films of the same name===
If a film's title is ambiguous (for example, shares its title with one or more other films or other topics on Misplaced Pages, or is a widely used generic term that might not be recognized as a film title), disambiguation will be necessary, unless the film name is determined by consensus to be the ] for the ambiguous term. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without disambiguation. For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings).

;Examples
* ] – Requires no disambiguation as the sole candidate for the title.
* ] – ], the novel, is considered to be the primary topic so the film is disambiguated.
* ] – ] is a disambiguation page because there is no primary topic.
* ] and ] – ] is regarded as the primary topic so both films are disambiguated.
* ], ] and ] – The original film is regarded as the primary topic so the other two adaptations are disambiguated.
* ], ], and ] – None of the films are the primary topic so they are all disambiguated.

Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated.

In the rare case that multiple films of the same name are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin, like ] and ]; or a descriptive adjective, such as ] and ].

'''Comment''' I can live with the alternative proposal. The main reason behind the "confusion" section was because the Film project has been expending a lot of energy recently on page moves with editors arguing for ambiguous disambiguation i.e. ''Psycho (film)'' over ''Psycho (1960 film)''. We consider it irrelevant whether one film is much more famous than the other, and feel that PRECISE should be fully observed once the decision to disambiguate has been taken. Anyway, barring any objections I will move Dicklyon's redraft into the guidelines in a couple of days time and hopefully the rewording is strong enough to bury this ongoing (film/YEAR film) debate. ] (]) 09:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

:The first sentence of the proposal is inaccurate. We are not concerned with the title's ambiguity in this section. --] (]) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

::The parenthetical in the first sentence detracts from the overall clarity of the article and is out of place. The section under review is about films of the same name. Other cases are covered elsewhere. --] (]) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

::::The example section is good, assuming it is accurate. I'd like to suggest we incorporate that into the section and adopt Betty's text, which fits better. --] (]) 22:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

:::I hadn't noticed the difference in wording myself—nothing gets past Ring! Determining what to disambiguate is not what we are trying to clarify, it is just the selection of a disambiguator which we are trying to address. I agreed above to not change the actual guideline so we should keep it as it is for now, and just use Dicklyon's rewording from the examples downwards, which offers the clarification we need. If that still doesn't solve the problem we can revisit the guideline itself. ] (]) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

::::Yes, you agreed, but my reading is that Dicklyon's try takes the same approach as you regarding "primary topic". His objection, i.e. that your text "assumes" there is a primary topic, seems vacated by his proposal, which seems to make the same assumption. I hope he will agree that it is okay in the final analysis to put it plainly and just tell the reader that the primary topic is there and what to do about it. This context, where there are films of the same name, makes it mandatory to discuss primary topics. --] (]) 01:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::I do not understand what you're saying, or why you think I make the assumption that a primary topic exists; sometimes it does, but I see that as more of a special case than a typical case. Do you have a specific proposed wording in mind? ] (]) 04:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::Maybe it's that last part, which I'd say would be better in this shortened proposed version (examples as above):

;Between films of the same name


Made it clear that using the disambiguator (film) is actually a rule - that is; using (movie) or similar is not just alternative usage, it is not accepted. ] (]) 21:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If a film's title is ambiguous, disambiguation will be necessary (unless the film name is determined by consensus to be the ] for the ambiguous term). The usual disambiguation is to name the article by adding the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings) in parentheses after the film's title.


== How to properly disambiguate films from the same year? ==
*No, this repeats the same misconstruction as mentioned above. As to "the assumption that a primary topic exists", it is present in all the drafts offered. I see no way to differentiate them in that regard. And that is not a problem, since anything we say about films with the same title must cover it explicitly. --] (]) 13:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


What is the proper procedure when you can't disambiguate films with the same title in the same year easily "by country"? E.G. ] vs. ]? Are you supposed to disambiguate by director? Or by "genre"? The latter seems problematic to me, which is why I have reservations about the "''Wolf''" example above. Or is there some other way?... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::Nobody has said they believe a primary topic always exists. Betty's draft had ""The 'primary topic' for any given title is defined to be the topic..." which suggests that it must exist by definition. The other stuff I changed merely used the phrase "the primary topic" in a way that might to some suggest that it always exists, which in general it does not. So "the assumption that a primary topic exists" is not intended in any of these drafts, but is something that a reader might wrongly infer if we're not careful. So let's be careful. ] (]) 16:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:Is {{tqq|Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film)}} and {{tqq|Wolf (2021 Indian film)}} too bad? —'']'' (]) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::It would go by geographical location of the owning company before it would be director/genre/etc. ] ] 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


:There's a mix
:::Even in cases where there is not a primary topic, the issue has to be addressed, I believe. Or do you see it as a subject that can be avoided? --] (]) 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
::By director: ], ]
::By genre: ], ]
::By country: ], ]


:Personally, in the case of ''Wolf'', I'd stick with the current page titles (genre) and def. avoid country in this case, as one of them is a co-production. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I'm not following you. What issue has to be addressed? What issue do you think I'm trying to avoid? I thought the proposals above were fairly clear about the need to disambiguate, and how. ] (]) 06:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


{{Anchor|director}}
:::::I think Dicklyon's examples section, assuming they are accurate, is an improvement. I'd like to incorporate them into the article if there is no objection. --] (]) 17:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:: Disambig'ing "by genre" is generally a terrible, imprecise way to do it, to the point where ] goes to great lengths to avoid that. Diambig'ing "by format (e.g. "animated" vs. "live-action", "short film" can also work in this case) is vastly preferable, where applicable, but disambig'ing "by genre" is a pretty bad idea (e.g. "thriller" is actually a "subgenre" of "drama", so how are we even disambiguating here?!). My advice: if you can't disambig. "by year", "by country", or "by format", then the next choice should be something like "by director" – disambiguating "by genre" shouldn't even really be an option, or it should be a super-last-resort option, at best. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::I've added them in, since everyone seems to be ok with this aspect of the revision. ] (]) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I agree. The example "by genre" that Lugnuts brought up is also incorrect as "short film" isn't a genre and the short film could still be a drama, so the disambiguation doesn't work. ] should be {{tq|The Visitor (2007 feature film)}} to be properly unambiguous. —'']'' (]) 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I agree that genre is not the way to go with this. As IJB states it is imprecise. At this moment the one labeled drama has no sourced info describing it as such (or as any other genre for that matter) and the one labeled thriller includes a reference whose title is "Wolf Movie Review: Engaging psychological '''drama''' derailed by a shaky third act" and another ref that says watching it is a thrilling experience but does not ascribe the film to that genre. I have a vague memory that we used the directors name as the dab years ago but I could easily be wrong. In this case I think using the names is the best choice. ]&#124;] 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


::::I also agree that genre isn't the best disambig to use. Director would ''probably'' be the best (or least-worst) choice for this case. Shame that the Irish-Polish film wasn't a Hungarian production, then at least it could be Hungary like the wolf... ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:What about these three?


:::::Your director examples are like that because they are both American films. Thus, they had to be taken to another level because you couldn't use "1915 American film". Just because I'm not sure why this wasn't mentiond from the getgo. But this is directly in the guidelin: "'''For multiple films of the same name that are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin (adjective), like Noise (2007 Australian film) and Noise (2007 American film); or contrasting descriptive adjectives, such as Heidi (2005 live-action film) and Heidi (2005 animated film) or Skin (2018 feature film) and Skin (2018 short film).'''" Notice how we started with country of origin, and then moved to the next disambiguation (animated vs. live-action). The next one would be akin to genre, but again we started with country of origin. ] ] 12:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
* ]
::::::{{u|Bignole}} I'm probably wrong about this but I sense that guideline comes from a time when the film project was more simplistic (and I don't use that word as a negative) in its use of "country" - since then we've had discussions about the term in relation to whether "county where filming took place" or "country where the production company was based" etc, as the defining factor. I'm pretty sure the use of country in both the infobox and the lede has altered over the years. It might be worth a discussion to update the guideline you mention. My apologies if I am way off base on this. ]&#124;] 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
* ]
* ]


:::::::You're right, the term has had some debate over the years, but I don't think that's a problem with this guideline. We've had more issues with films and identifying a defining "genre" for the film. There are more edit wars and debates over whether a film is a comedy, drama, superhero, action, romance, etc. film than there are as to whether it is a US film versus a UK film. Genres of current films are also more fluid today than the country of origin of a film. Additionally, there are more roles to making a film than the director. Saying "''Superman (1978 Richard Donner film)''" makes it seem like the most important fact is that it is a Donner film and minimizes the roles of the writer, producer, etc. By saying the country as the second disambiguation (after year), the most you're going to have to worry about is whether or not there is disagreement over the country of origin, which really does not happen that much. ] ] 17:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Chortle. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for the reply. I should add that two films with the same title in the same year doesn't occur very often so your point is fine. IMO the two Wolf films that this thread is about should be moved sooner rather than later ]&#124;] 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::The country of origin tends to be the country of the production company, not the country where filming takes place. These two films' countries aren't in question, their leads list their countr(ies) of origin. The "problem" is that one of them has dual "nationality", that's why it seeems it shouldn't be moved to distinction by country, but I see no problem with doing it. There are no length problems here, since the title is one four-letter word and the countries' names are rather short as well. {{tqq|Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film)}} and {{tqq|Wolf (2021 Indian film)}} isn't bad at all. —'']'' (]) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Agree that genre disambig is bad. Usually I'd be put off by the hyphenated dual nationality for the one but the scourge of director primacy is much worse than that, as {{u|Bignole}} implies, so I agree with {{u|Facu-el Millo}} about using nationality being the least worst option. —] (]) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:::+1 for fourth optional choice to disamb' by would be director. Genre is not as factual or black and white as DIRECTOR person, and genre seems interpretive or subjective to me, whereas a director would be crazy to release two films in one year under the same exact title!<br>-From <b>Peter</b> {a.k.a. ] <i>(] | ])</i>} 01:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:What about language? Most readers wouldn't know the English-language film is an Irish-Polish production, while they would definitely know it's in English. Had it been a production of a single anglophone country, the countries would have been perfectly intuitive disambiguators, but readers couldn't be quite sure if the "2021 Irish-Polish film" is definitely what they're looking for upon seeing it. There are precedents, like ] vs ], even though many of them seem to be old ]s. ] (]) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
::I think the reason you have "English language" and "Spanish language" for Dracula is because they were both US productions by Universal in the same year. So, in that special case it made sense that you would go down further so something else that separated them out. That's more of an outlier than something that needs a rule. ] ] 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


==When was ] added to the page?==
:There's a requested move at ], actually. :) ] (] &#124; ]) 17:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
There can be no such thing. We have an editor now at WP:RM undiscussed moves arguing on the basis of this shortcut that there is such a thing as primary film rather than ]. This shortcut should be removed from page and the shortcut deleted. ] (]) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
::These instances must be pretty rare, but maybe when two films from the same year have to be disambiguated maybe we should just go with the director's name i.e. ''Journey to the Center of the Earth'' (Jones and Wheeler film) (Eric Brevig film) (T.J. Scott film). Not a fan of distribution being a disambiguator because it could vary from country to country. ] (]) 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:Are you disputing the technical shortcut or the content it leads to? ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
::The shortcut, it suggests that there is such a thing as primary film, there is not. ] (]) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Having a shortcut to this section of the MOS is useful. The section simply stipulates how to disambiguate film titles when the film is not the primary topic. The editor at that discussion quoting this guideline is not making the case that there is a "primary film", they are correctly opposing the move on the grounds that MOS:FILM does not do partial disambiguation. The nominator of the move is the one incorrectly arguing that there is a "primary film", but he is not quoting this guideline. ] (]) 21:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
::::So what is the point of a guideline link to a guideline that (correctly) says the opposite? Or maybe that is the point. ] (]) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


== From other topics == == Formerly untitled/upcoming media ==


After a months-long discussion at {{slink|WT:CSD|Formerly untitled/upcoming media}}, there was no consensus to create a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" that point to creative works no longer untitled or upcoming, despite clear consensus from past RfD discussions that these redirects should be deleted (], ], ], ], ]). As an alternate proposal, I suggest the following be added to ], which can then be referenced in future RfD discussions: {{tqq|After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as ], ], and ] are no longer accurate and now misleading to readers. These redirects should be nominated for deletion at ] when this happens, preferably after all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated.}} Once again pinging participants of the previous discussion: {{ping|Steel1943|Cryptic|Thryduulf|Kusma|Jclemens|Tavix|A7V2|StarTrekker|Shhhnotsoloud|Mellohi!|Buidhe|Pppery|BD2412|Jontesta|TNstingray|Oiyarbepsy|ValarianB|Tamzin|p=}}. ] (]) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In , Ring Cinema said the point about whether a primary topic always exists is under discussion, but the section above seems to make it clear that nobody thinks so. I was merely fixing an error. So I fixed it again. If anyone sees a better fix, please make it or propose it. But don't go back to what's plainly wrong, which was when it said "compare all topics and determine which one is the ]". ] (]) 16:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:I tried something simpler. --] (]) 18:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC) * Yes, I think that's fine. Perhaps provide a link to the relevant discussions. ] ] 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::I clarified it, changing "if" to "whether" and a few more words. Oh, wait, that's what I had before. Anyway, I'm glad we agree now. ] (]) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC) * Thank you for your perseverance {{re|InfiniteNexus}}. The text looks good to me. ] (]) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
* Sounds good. Thanks, ] (]) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::And if you could be more clear what words bother you we could probably converge more quickly. Is it where I added "for that title" after "primary topic" (sort of like the expression "primary for that term" in ])? To say "compare all topics and determine whether one of them is the primary topic" seems incomplete without that. Or maybe that's not the part you meant to object to? ] (]) 06:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
* Yes, this is sorely needed.] (]) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
* This is fine guidance for now. — ''Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung'', '']''''']''' (]) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
* As ''guidance'', its not bad but "preferably after all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated" is not strong enough - all incomming mainspace links ''must'' be retargetted ''before'' any nomination, and there needs to be a delay between the article being moved and the redirect being nominated for deletion to ensure that as many people as possible are able to find the article at the new location (this is especially important when the new title takes any form of disambiguation). There should also be a sanity check in there to ensure that, as far as possible, people ''are'' looking for the article at the new rather than old title. ] (]) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
*:You are free to make those objections in the RfD discussions itself, as you have done so in the past (to little success, I might add). The guideline should simply reflect the consensus on what to do with these redirects, which is deletion. Also, it isn't a requirement to clear all incoming links before nominating a redirect to RfD. ] (]) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
*::{{tpq|It isn't a requirement to clear all incoming links before nominating a redirect to RfD}} indeed it is not because it is not the correct thing to do in all circumstances. It is however something that needs to be done for all of these types of redirects - its harmful enough to the encyclopaedia that we delete these redirects while they are still in use, creating redlinks in our own articles is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face. Similarly the delay between moving the article and nominating for deletion - at the very least we need to allow time for search engines to catch up. ] (]) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
* This sounds fine in general. re: {{U|Thryduulf}}'s objection, I'd be fine changing ''preferably'' to ''should'', but think ''must'' is perhaps too strong. ] (]) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
*:Why is "must" too strong? When is it ever going to be a good idea to nominate these redirects for deletion before all the incoming links are fixed? ] (]) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
*::They can be fixed afterward ... ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
*:::That doesn't answer either question. ] (]) 09:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
*::Misplaced Pages will not be broken because of some red links possibly getting left behind. There are enough editors in the Film Project that any redirects would be taken care of quite swiftly. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
*:::In which there are enough editors to fix the redirects ''before'' we make it harder for our readers to find the article they are looking for. ] (]) 09:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' with this proposal <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


== Ocean's Eleven ==


----
There is a request to move ] to ] and to move ] to ]. The discussion can be seen ]. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


== Proposed change ==


I have added in the text to ], with a few slight adjustments and minor c/e. Thryduulf, I hope this satisifes your concern regarding updating incoming links. Feel free to perform additional c/e as needed. Thanks all. ] (]) 06:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Misplaced Pages, compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic."→"If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Misplaced Pages, compare all film topics and determine whether one is more prominent than the others."


== Articles (a/an/the) as disambiguators ==
I know the 1997 film is not the primary topic of the title "]", but it ''is'' the primary topic of the title "]". It's quite inconvenient searching (or linking to) the title "Titanic (film)" and being redirected to a disambig page that lists a bunch of other films that neither I nor 99.9% of English Misplaced Pages users have never heard of. I was actually the one who tried ] under a different account before I was made aware of this guideline. This still applies to "]" as well, but the redirect "]" actually already violates this guideline (the barely-noteworthy 1998 film could just as easily be misnamed without the "The"). ] (<small>]]</small>) 10:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. If something is disambiguated, it needs to be fully disambiguated, otherwise it is still ambiguous. "]" is pointing to the wrong place - I'll change that. --] (]) 10:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::Why? Isn't that what hatnotes are for? ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::No, we don't have secondary primary topics. --] (]) 11:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::Is there a reason for that? It seems counter-intuitive. I've looked around and this page seems to be the only one that specifies this policy, although the same seems to apply to ] and ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 11:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::The point of disambiguation is to make a title unambiguous. If you've only partially disambiguated a title, it's still ambiguous, so it defeats the point as the disambiguation isn't doing its job. The essay ] discusses the situation further. --] (]) 11:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::That essay lists ] in non-film categories that currently run against the trend here, and ] in non-film categories that also run against this trend. Why can't NCFILM follow the precedent of ], or ]? ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It's not a guideline, it documents the two sides of the argument, and catalogues the (few) cases where it hasn't been followed. As you say - "against the trend". We shouldn't be trying to make a ] here, that would also be "against the trend" and you can see from your previous attempt to move that there is a strong opposition to your proposal. ''Lost'' or ''Angel'' don't set any precedent, they are simply examples. --] (]) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Actually, "]" is a redirect. --] (]) 12:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I said "trend here" -- don't misquote me. I specifically stated that ] is listed as a redirect (read my post more closely). I can not find a single policy or guideline that states that we don't have secondary primary topics ''except'' this one, so actually the status quo is a LOCALCONSENSUS that contradicts the trend of a significant number of other pages that are listed (under ''two separate headings'', both of which contradict the NCFILM LOCALCONSENSUS) in that essay you showed me. ] (<small>]]</small>) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::What you have are a very small number of examples that do not follow the guideline. These are exceptions or oversights. ]. It seems you just want to change the guidelines so that two pages you mention can be moved. --] (]) 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Incidentally, why do you call ] "barely noteworthy"? That's clearly not the case. --] (]) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't "want" to change or move anything. This is a ''proposed'' change, not a "change that I want". Clearly the (respectively) second- and third-highest grossing movies of all time are inherently more ] than the relatively obscure older films that share their titles. The fact that the simplest titles for both of these articles do not direct the reader directly to what they want to read (let alone that they make it inconvenient for editors who accidentally link to disambig pages) just doesn't seem appropriate. Instead of providing me with a reason (another policy, guideline, etc.) why NCFILM has this unusual rule, you instead directed me to a page that provides a (non-exhaustive) list of numerous exceptions to this "rule". Clearly NCALBUM and NCTV allow for reasonable exceptions like Avengers 2012 and Titanic 1997 -- why doesn't NCFILM? In the last 90 days, some 20 times as many people read the than read . This means that of the roughly 4,000 people who searched for either or , probably 3,800 were looking for the article on the 2012 film: why on earth can we not just redirect them to where they want to go?? (BTW, when I said "noteworthy" I wasn't referring to GNG -- I was referring to the fact that, compared to the behemoth that came 14 years later, it is a footnote to a footnote.) ] (<small>]]</small>) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' If you are going to disambiguate something there is no point only partially disambiguating the page. ] stipulates "''...titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.''" ''Titanic (film)'' violates this criterion. ] (]) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::You missed off the word "Usually" from the start of that definition from WP:PRECISE. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::And you've neglected to qualify the instances where the criterion does not apply: ''Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria.'' So what other naming criteria would potentially trump PRECISE in the case of film articles? Our guidelines already deal with the case of ] and ] so what else is there? ] (]) 13:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::I neglected to qualify lots of things, but I didn't take something out of context, such as leaving off a key word in a line of policy. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::If I misrepresented a guideline as a policy like you have done ''then'' I would be taking something out of context. ] (]) 14:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::But what about ] that violate your interpretation of PRECISE? I could just as easily say that it's a violation of ] and ] to include veiled reference to the titles of much more obscure films ''in the titles'' of articles like "]" and "]". ] (<small>]]</small>) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::WP:PDAB is an essay that was rejected as a guideline. The exception does not make the rule. The NPOV policy does not apply here either because this is a matter of organization. In another universe, Misplaced Pages could be structured to show an article under a given category, where disambiguation would not be part of the article title. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply either because the overall consensus is to disambiguate topics from each other, and WikiProject Film follows that. I do not see a compelling reason to make certain article titles more ambiguous because they are more popular than other titles, in some form of hierarchy. It seems like the objection here is that the desire is to be able to type "Titanic (film)", knowing that "Titanic" on its own would go to the ship's article, right? I find that a rather specialist search to perform (I do that myself) but it is not one that most readers would do. So it is hard to favor adding ambiguity to the way that articles are organized for that relatively minor convenience. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I address a side issue here, not the main thread. I'm not sure I can agree that local consensus does not apply -- not in any case. Local consensus is recognized as the method by which new practices are introduced that sometimes become widespread enough to be policies. Policy is by design a reflection of practice, so as a logical matter a policy can't trump a local consensus. However, that point is mostly moot, since as a practical matter page editors can ignore any policy or guideline if there is a consensus to do so. I don't see what would stop them. That's why we have the anomalies RobSinden mentions above perhaps. --] (]) 17:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, show me another policy or guideline that says the same thing as NCFILM? The exceptions are proof enough that other naming conventions allow for such exceptions. Most of them are likely not as extreme as the Avengers example I discuss above. ] (<small>]]</small>) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see where that is point. Could you spell out please why it is important? NCFILM does what NCFILM is supposed to do. --] (]) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ec}} The policy is ]. It says, ''"When a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary."'' By itself, "The Avengers (film)" is not enough detail. The release year is the most objective way to identify the 1998 film and the 2012 film. By the way, the 1998 film is notable per Misplaced Pages's guidelines many, many times over. It would be more accurate to say "more popular" so we do not obfuscate popularity with notability, which is specifically defined on Misplaced Pages. In response to what you said above, the 1998 film's article actually gets more traffic than the disambiguation page. This is because most readers are arriving at the appropriate article through search engine results or Misplaced Pages's automatic drop-down menu which shows "The Avengers (2012 film)" when one begins typing "The Av..." ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Moving on from mine and Lugnut's little domestic, the main two ways a reader would search for an article (interpret that as the two ways I search) would be a google search or by typing into Misplaced Pages's own search box. Both methods bring up the full title by just typing "titanic" into the search, and ''Titanic (1997 film)'' instantly identifies the article to the reader, so I just don't see what we gain from reintroducing partial disambiguation. Why risk potential confusion when we can instantly clear that up with a well chosen title? I just don't see the logice, and the fact that many other articles use partial dismabiguation isn't a reason in itself. ] (]) 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::YES! That's the kind of sensible response I was looking for. Now that you mention it, having unambiguous article titles is probably preferable anyway. Your points are good, but they do not explain why we can't make ] and ] can't be made to ''redirect'' to the article readers are probably looking for (and editors are trying to link to). I don't like getting disambig link notices on my talk page, and the current directions of these redirects are basically functioning as traps for hapless editors like me. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi all - I recently participated in a ] discussion (at ]) where it was stated that the terms a/an/the are generally, on their own, seen as insufficient to distinguish titles of films from one another. I was curious to see if this was the case, so I did a bit of searching - but the first applicable case I found, ] vs. ], seemed to contradict the claim. However, I'm not well versed in this topic area, so I wanted to bring my question in front of people who are better informed about film-article titling practices than I am. My thoughts are mainly as follows:
== 3D film titling ==
* Is it the case that a/an/the alone are normally seen as insufficient disambiguation for the titles of film articles?
* If it is the case, ] should be amended to say so explicitly, as this would constitute an exception in the otherwise determinative policy at ].
] (] • ]) 18:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:Per ], a/an/the should be sufficient in disambiguation. ] (]) 01:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
::agree... ] says an article would be sufficient. —] (]) 03:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


== OVA ==
I've noticed a lack of uniformity here when it comes to 3D films. In the case of '']'' (a featured article), the 3D in the title was dropped very early on in that articles life, with little to no effort to restore it. Same goes for the recently released '']'', which has it's official poster as ''Pompeii in 3D''. However, go back and we find '']'', '']'' (I just renamed 3DD to DD, will revert after posting this), '']'', and '']''. I personally don't believe we should include 3D in the title of the article unless it is especially relevant or released in some 3D format on home release (like '']''). However, I think we can find a solution.
It's even inconsistent between ], ], and ]. IMDb is user-created and not a ], however (much like Misplaced Pages itself) and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are run by professionals and ''are'' reliable sources. In the case of , , and , the 3D is exempted on Metacritic. Ditto for Rotten Tomatoes. However, in the case of , and include it. And yet, Rotten Tomatoes does not include 3D for . In my personal opinion, I think the MOS should read that we use Rotten Tomatoes' titles, but there's discussion for a reason. We need to have some kind of uniform policy for 3D films, or things will just get confusing. ''']''' ]</span> 15:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
:My initial thinking is that if reliable sources reference the film without the 3D annotation, we should fall back to that. I was going to say that it looks like this would apply to ''Silent Hill: Revelation'' and ''A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas'', but not to ''Piranda 3-D'' or ''Piranha 3DD'', but checking the ''Piranha'' reviews at Metacritic, it does look like there are some reviews that just call the first one ''Piranha''. Maybe in that case, with the sequel's title being ''Piranha 3DD'' universally, it makes sense to keep ''3-D'' for the first one as a matter of natural disambiguation. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
:''Dredd'' is just , marketing purposes don't modify that. In the case of Harold and Kumar, I fought against teh inclusion of 3d but all evidence provided says it actually is called that, with the 3D included. ] ] / Comment on '']'s FA nom! 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Should ]s be disambiguated as (OVA)? I'm asking because someone tagged ] as not having a correct name per naming guidelines, but I looked through other OVAs, and many of them are disambiguated as such. I think this needs to be added to the guideline. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
== Naming convention for film award categories and pages ==


== ''Willow'' ==
What is the naming convention regarding film award categories?<br />


Apparently, there was ] which attempted to move ] to ], per ], but it was closed as no consensus. Looking at ], this is — as far as we know — the ''only'' article on Misplaced Pages which doesn't conform to our guideline. What can and should we do about this? ] (]) 04:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
'''Award winner categories:''' In most cases the naming is like this - "Best CATEGORY-WINNER AWARD-NAME winners" like in ], but there are others as well, such as ], ], ] and ].


== RMs challenging PFILM ==
'''Award page:''' In most cases the naming is like this - "AWARD-NAME for CATEGORY-WINNER" like in ], while others appear as well such as ]. Festival names for an award appear different as well as "Best CATEGORY-WINNER Award (FESTIVAL-NAME Film Festival) like ]. --] (]) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


{{A note}} Two RMs have been opened directly challenging ]:
:Good question. I guess they should at least mirror what the film festival calls the award, but I see no harm in setting a standard to mirror the Academy Award categories/pages. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
] (]) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


== General conventions ==
:Not a lot of action going on here it seems. Also, as this seemed a bit familer to me, It turns out I already raised a similar problem . If there isn't any objection I think we should go for a standard naming convention as follows:
* Award pages: "AWARD-NAME for CATEGORY-WINNER" - example: ]
* Award winner categories: "Best CATEGORY-WINNER AWARD-NAME winners" - Example: ]
* It seems Festival awards are as follows:
** "Best AWARD-NAME (FESTIVAL-NAME Film Festival)" - Example: ] or
** "AWARD-NAME (FESTIVAL-NAME Film Festival)" - Example: ]--] (]) 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


I find it somewhat odd that this page doesn't have more "general" guidance on how film articles are named. There's only that small blurb at the top of the page, but it only mentions capitalization and italics. At a minimum, I think the following points should be noted:
How would a standard apply? --] (]) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
* Normally, we use the official title as indicated by the billing block, MPAA certificate, or copyright offices
:@], I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. If you're asking how it should look like, then as i wrote above, award pages should be "AWARD-NAME for CATEGORY-WINNER" and award winner categories should be "Best CATEGORY-WINNER AWARD-NAME winners". --] (]) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
* We use the title used at the time of the original release (e.g. ])
* Sometimes, we use an alternative common name (e.g. ])
* We don't use international titles (e.g. ])
* If the article title differs from the actual title, the latter should be the first thing in the lead (e.g. ])
] (]) 03:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:Here's what I'm thinking:
<dl><dd>{{tqb|1=<nowiki/>
{{fake heading|General}}


In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its , , official press releases, or .
Another issue I've noticed is regarding award names. Some of the award pages are in plural form, such as: ] ] ] ] while others are in the singular form, such as: ] ] ]. Is there any reason not to choose one form and apply it for all award pages? --] (]) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


* It is common for films to be stylized differently in promotional materials.
:Would this proposal only apply to the names of articles? --] (]) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
** Examples: ], ], ]
:: The first one was regarding names of articles, the second one was regarding names of categories. The latest issue with the plural vs singular doesn't have a proposal yet, just stated whats going on wikipedia atm and asking for thoughts on that matter.--] (]) 18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
* It is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.
** Examples: ], '']'', '']''
* Use the title used at the time of the film's release, disregarding retroactive title changes.
** Examples: '']'', ], ]
* Sometimes, it is acceptable to use an alternative ] that is more concise or recognizable.
** Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* Subtitles and possessives used for brand recognition may be omitted for concision, unless they are being used for ].
** Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* Use the title used in the film's country of origin, not international titles.
** Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* Take note of minute formatting irregularities that may be overlooked by some sources, such as spelling and punctuation.
** Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* Per ], spaced hyphens should be normalized as en dashes.
** Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* Per ], ignore special characters and normalize them as regular text. This does not apply to numbers or common symbols.
** Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''


If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be ].}}</dl></dd>
== Why parentheses? ==
:Did I miss or go overboard with anything? ] (]) 18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


*I personally think this is a great idea, and the examples you came up with are stellar. If I had to nitpick, I would only suggest finding ways to improve the formatting & spacing. Having it like that line after line just strikes me as cluttered. Maybe eliminating the bullet points in front of each line of examples would be a start. We could also highlight the topic for each example to make it stand out more.
{{archive top|result=Parentheses around “film series” should not be removed. Other, unresolved issues are being treated in an RFC in the next section. —] (]) 11:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)}}
:This is just spitballing, but maybe something more like this:
'''Please read the RFC below.''' <del>In {{article section|Film series}}, why '''''Series subject'' (film series)''' rather than '''''Series subject'' film series'''? The subject’s name isn’t the film series, so it seems to make more sense without parentheses. —] (]) 07:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)</del>
<dl><dd>{{tqb|1=<nowiki/>
:If the series had a formal name—such as '']''—then that's what the article would be called. There is nothing wrong with ''Harry Potter film series'' or ''Harry Potter films'', or even ''Harry Potter adaptations'', but the box sets tend to just be branded as "Harry Potter" (see ), so it makes sense to just use the title that is used in the branding and disambiguate the title. It stops arguments and is consistent with other film series articles in the same position. ] (]) 19:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Stylized titles''' – It is common for films to be stylized differently in promotional materials.
::The consistency is what's misguided. If an article is about the Harry Potter film series, there's no reason for Misplaced Pages to make "Harry Potter" a definite article. Something like ] makes more sense to me. -- ] (]) 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::Examples: ], ], ]
*'''Onscreen titles''' – It is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.
::Examples: ], '']'', '']''
*'''Retroactive changes''' – Use the title used at the time of the film's release, disregarding retroactive title changes.
::Examples: '']'', ], ]
:...}}</dl></dd>
:Just my 2¢ --] (]) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::Updated version:
<dl><dd><dl><dd>{{tqb|1=<nowiki/>
In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its , , official press releases, or .


* '''Marketing stylizations''' – It is common for film titles to be rendered differently in promotional materials.
<p>] currently instructs, {{tq|“For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be '''''Series name'' (film series)''' or '''''Series subject'' (film series)'''.”}} I propose either changing or removing the “Series subject” model—if the series ''does not have a name'', there’s no reason for the descriptive term to be in italics or for “film series” to be in parentheses. For instance, ''']''' is not “'''''James Bond'' (film series)'''.” <ins>And most significantly, we don’t appear to ''have'' any articles titled '''Series subject (film series)''' where subject and name are not identical.</ins> —] (]) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC); edited 04:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)</p>
*: Examples: ], ], '']''
* '''Onscreen titles''' – It is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.
*: Examples: ], '']'', '']''
* '''Retroactive changes''' – Use the title used at the time of the film's release, disregarding retroactive changes.
*: Examples: '']'', ], ]
* '''Common names''' – Sometimes, it is acceptable to use an alternative ] that is more concise or recognizable.
*: Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* '''Branding subtitles''' – Subtitles and possessives used for brand recognition may be omitted for concision, unless they are being used for ].
*: Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* '''International titles''' – Use the title used in the film's country of origin, not international ones.
*: Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* '''Formatting irregularities''' – Take note of small formatting quirks that may be overlooked by some sources.
*: Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''
* '''En dashes''' – Per ], convert hyphens to en dashes if applicable.
*: Examples: '']'', '']'', ]
* '''Special characters''' – Per ], ignore special characters and normalize them as regular text. This does not apply to numbers or common symbols.
*: Examples: '']'', '']'', '']''


If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be ].}}</dl></dd></dl></dd>
*'''Support''' in principle, however, it would be preferable to give an example of the alternative case where these is no name, e.g.:
::] (]) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{User:sroc/box|1|For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be '''''Series name'' (film series)''', such as {{xt|]}}. Where the series does not have a common title, use the most natural description, such as {{xt|]}}. When trilogies are often referred to as such by reliable sources, their articles may be titled '''''Series name'' trilogy''' (e.g., {{xt|]}}), or '''''Series name'' trilogy (film series)''' if further disambiguation is required. If there are two film series with the same name, use '''(YEAR film series)''' as the disambiguation term, where '''YEAR''' is the year of the first film of the series.}}
:<small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 06:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC) :::Looks good to me. --] (]) 03:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I am going to add this in now, seeing as there has been no opposition. As this wording documents existing and longstanding practices, I don't feel additional !votes of approval are strictly necessary. ] (]) 05:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
**I '''support''' this version. —] (]) 06:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} {{ping|Gonnym}} ] – How so? ] (]) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The '''XXXX in film''' and '''XXXX (film series)''' are not synonymous. If a series has an official title then that is what is used, but if not then the term or subject that is most commonly associated with the series is used instead, and if necessary disambiguated. The disambiguator ''(film series)'' and ''in film'' are not interchangeable, and are used to structure the different article tiers. Let's take Batman for example. There are several different articles about ] movie properties on Misplaced Pages. There is ], ] and ]; all three need to be disambiguated since the main ''Batman'' article occupies the title. We also have ] and ]; in the case of the latter the common name is used, but since the original series doesn't have a unique name it is named after the property and disambiguated in such a way as to identify the topic. Finally there is ] which describes the presence of the Batman property in the medium of film. The Batman example isn't an anomaly, it is quite common. Articles about individual film series need to be differentiated from articles about a property's film presence, which is why the distinction exists. If you change the article name for ] to ''Harry Potter in film'' then it actually creates inconsistency, because the article is about a single series. ] (]) 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
**In the title “],” is “Batman” being used as the name of the ''series'', or the name of the ''character'' who is the subject of the series, or the name of the ''first film'' of the series? If that article is named for the character himself, it shouldn’t be italicized (i.e., '''Series subject (film series)''', not '''''Series subject'' (film series)'''). Otherwise, none of the Batman series articles are an example of what I’ve asked to remove—those series all have ''names''. How about replacing the line with “… the title of the article should be '''''Series name'' (film series)''' or <ins>'''''First film's name'' (film series)'''</ins>”? —] (]) 19:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::What you are suggesting is removing the naming consistency for series without formal titles. If we don't disambiguate film series titles, then it leaves the question of what to call them: ''1989 Batman film series''? The ''Original Batman films''? As for changing the guideline to ''First film's name (film series)'', then I don't really see how ''Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone (film series)'' is superior to ] It also has implications for something like ], which I don't think would be improved by calling ''The Bourne Ultimatum (film series)''. In fact, both would seem to conflict with ]. If you just have an issue with the italicisation then that can be corrected through formatting, but otherwise I think this really is a case of trying to fix something that isn't broke. ] (]) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::{{tq|“'''''Batman''''' is a superhero film series featuring …”}}. So that series is named ''Batman''; call it that. But ] is ambiguous, so disambiguate it with the year, and we have the article’s current title. “Series subject” still doesn’t apply. Similarly, the ''Harry Potter'' films are collectively named ''Harry Potter''. ''Those series have titles.'' I’m actually not sure whether the Jason Bourne movies (actually beginning with '']'') have a collective name, so that may be a good example, unless ''Bourne'' is short for ''The Bourne XXXX''. If not, I’d be happy with '''Bourne (film series)''' (no italics), and I honestly see no problem with '''Bourne film series''' (i.e. the film series about the character Bourne, as opposed to the film series which ''is'' the character Bourne). Again, this is assuming that “Bourne” is '''''not''''' the name of the series. <br> Anyway, was my RFC not clear that italicizing a descriptive title was an issue? I never suggested we shouldn’t provide guidance for series that don’t have their own names (unless there are no such series); I suggested ''changing'' it to be more consistent, treating our article titles as what they actually are rather than indiscriminately treating them the same. —] (]) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::]: '''Series subject''' titles are ''descriptive'' titles. Treat them as such. —] (]) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps you could provide us with some examples of articles where you disagree with the naming convention, because all I keep seeing is agreement with the examples I bring up. It would provide us with a better understanding of the problem. ] (]) 22:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::That’s the thing—I don’t have any examples of “series subject” titles, other than ones like “<u>James Bond</u> in film” which don’t follow that format anyway. That’s what brought me to questioning whether there’s any point to having “series subject” in the guidance when we don’t seem to actually use it. Even your objections used examples which had names (even ''Bourne'', I’m pretty sure is truncated from the film titles). So… ''are'' there any articles with “series subject (film series)” titles where the series has no name? Or does that term mean something different from what I think it means? There has been zero discussion of that question besides my asking it below, so… —] (]) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ''per ] above.'' With parentheses it is easier to distinguish articles with similar titles. Also, this way it is visible on first sight whcih part of the article title is the actual series title and which part of the title is the part for disambiguation. Just imagine all the confusion in titles like ''Star Trek'' or ''Doctor Who''. --] (]) 10:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As per Betty Logan. The parentheses appear to be the most succinct way to differentiate between an actual title and a film series. Similarly, when we have several versions of a film, we use the parentheses to differentiate between them, so this would appear to continue that convention. ] (]) 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*Regarding the Batman example above, why wouldn't '''Batman film series, 1989–97''' be sufficient? -- ] (]) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' If there are no actual instances of “series subject (film series)” (as distinct from “series name”), then there’s no point mentioning it. —] (]) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::I have specifically discussed two examples already: the 1989 Batman series and the Harry Potter series. There are probably many other series that don't have formal names. You don't seem to be able to highlight any problematic titles, you haven't really proposed any viable alternatives in the examples I have given you, so I don't really understand why this discussion is taking place. ] (]) 20:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Those series are respectively named ''Batman'' and ''Harry Potter''. There is no indication that those articles are named for the series ''subjects'' rather than their names. (Otherwise, ] should open with {{tq|“<del>'''''Batman'''''</del> <ins>The '''Batman film series'''</ins> is a superhero film series ….”}}) I can’t really propose an alternative to something that isn’t there. But if we ''did'' misrepresent the facts by presenting non-names as names, my alternative would be to… not. —] (]) 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


:If the article title is X and the film's actual title is Y, then it would be acceptable to open with something like: "'''X''', theatrically released as '''Y''', ..." or "'''X''', officially titled '''Y''', ..." While there may be some instances where you'd want to mention Y first, it would seem unnecessary to enforce a particular approach. -- ] (]) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
=== Confusion of terms? ===
:Because we bold the article title, official names and alternative names. That is clearly stated in ], ]. Unrelated to my comment, but also relevant, this is a naming convention guideline, bolding names does not belong here and is a guideline fork. ] (]) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::]: {{tqq|When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms.}} I have never seen a film article's lead structured the other way round, or ''any'' article about a proper name, for that matter. Can you give an example? ] (]) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::]. ] (]) 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Huh? That article very much does not open with "'''''Borat''''', officially titled ..." ] (]) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Do you even remember what text I removed? You wrote {{tq|the bolded term that opens the lead sentence}} which can be understood to mean that other terms should not be bolded. If everything should be bolded, why mention it? If you actually meant to say, that the official film title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence then you should have written it like that. Either way, again, that belongs in ] and not here. ] (]) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::] is an example of an article starting with the short name and not with its official long name<ref>https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200162185/</ref> ] (]) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Because you just changed it? If an article title is a stylization rather than the official title, the stylization should of course not be the first title that opens the lead. ] (]) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Well, if you ignore sources that contradict your beliefs anything works I guess. So if the Library of Congress is not good enough, how about the studio that distributed the film?<ref>https://www.20thcenturystudios.com/movies/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance</ref>, BFI<ref>https://www.bfi.org.uk/film/c9f41790-6dd7-5446-b846-2128e0a664e8/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance</ref> or one of film's most important film critics?<ref>https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/birdman-2014</ref> It's pretty easy finding important sources claiming this is the official name. ] (]) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There are certainly going to be contradictions, but the billing block credits and the U.S. copyright listing are clearly the most authoritative sources. You are welcome to discuss further on that article's talk page if you wish. ] (]) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that is what I meant, the actual title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence. I am not calling for the other titles to not be in bold. ] (]) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps it would be better if ''you'' provided an example of a situation that illustrates what you were trying to accomplish, in case we are misunderstanding. -- ] (]) 20:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::]. {{smiley}} ] (]) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Per ]: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."{{pb}}The article title ''Borat'' qualifies as a widely accepted name and should therefore appear first per this guideline. ''Birdman'' is a similar case. There are always exceptions, of course, but that is generally how I'd approach it, especially when the film's actual title is very long, as it is with ''Borat''. I'm not sure we need any additional guidance here. -- ] (]) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let me just add that since there are multiple variations of the title ''Borat'', the current approach in that article works fine. It's one of the few exceptions to the general guidance that the article title appears first. --] (]) 21:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} As I wrote above, I have never seen an article about a proper noun that does this. ] gives ] as an example. For films specifically, we have Borat, ], ], ], etc. We also have ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If we focus on common names (shorthand titles) vs official names (lengthier titles), it happens quite often where the common name is listed first: '']'', '']'', '']'', ], ], and ] (where the official name isn't even mentioned until the last paragraph in the lead). I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that says you have to specify the official title first. --] (]) 00:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::For the first three examples, the shorter title is the official name. As far as I know (and no one thus far has been able to prove otherwise), no film articles list an alternative title first before "officially known as". The intent of the wording was to document this standard practice on film articles, but if there is a desire not to "mandate" this (even though guidelines aren't mandatory), I can live with that. ] (]) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah, perhaps my film examples weren't the best, but it does seem to come down to the sources you choose to go by. ''Episode V'' is in the official title at and , and Borat's full title is listed as an alternate title at . And we definitely know official titles aren't always enforced as the first occurrence in other non-film GA and FA articles. If WP:FILM wants to recognize that as a common practice, then perhaps it would be better to place it in MOS:FILM as {{u|Gonnym}} suggests and take a deeper dive on the subject at ]. I'm definitely not opposed to documenting a common practice if we want to ensure consistency across our film articles. --] (]) 13:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Perhaps that is a larger question to discuss at WT:FILM, which source(s) are the more authoritative when it comes to determining a film's "official" title. Personally, I think the billing block is king since it's essentially a form of credits, but maybe that's just me. ] (]) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Started a discussion at ]. ] (]) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Reflist below -->
{{reflist-talk}}


== Proposed allowance of PDABs for films ==
Maybe this is just a confusion of terms… what ''is'' a “series subject” as opposed to a “series name”? The responses here seem to treat them synonymously. Do we have any examples where the “series subject” is '''not''' used as the name of the film series? —] (]) 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to propose a review of the ] guideline, which I view as inconsistent. It makes no sense to me that films are on such a high pedestal that they can trump almost all other forms of ] (such as those for people or other mediums ).
My confusion on this point remains. If the subject of the series is ''used as the name'' of the series, is that not then the ] of the series? And we should assume that readers of this are already familiar with the main titling policy. Or can someone provide an example of an article where the subject '''is not used as the name''' of an unnamed series? Can someone show where this “series subject” guidance is relevant in actual use? —] (]) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


This is the case not only for clear ] titles such as ], ], ], ] and ] but also for many ] between a more well-known film and a relatively obscure film that most readers frankly would not know even exists without a Misplaced Pages article (such as ]] and ]], ]] and ]], ]] and ]], etc.), some of which have pageview ratios of 300:1 or more. This may even include possible ] (such as {{-r|Mulan (live-action film)|''Mulan'' }} for ]] rather than ]]).
== RFC: Series subject as a name ==
{{archivetop|Despite this RfC was a reformulation of the previous RfC, there is still no consensus to support these proposals. ] (]) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)}}
According to ], {{tq|“For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be '''''Series name'' (film series)''' or '''''Series subject'' (film series)'''.”}} Is the “'''series subject'''” alternative necessary when Misplaced Pages doesn’t seem to have any articles about nameless film series? Or if a series does not have a name, is it acceptable (i.e., not ]) for us to choose one ourselves (the “subject”) and present it as if it were the name, per the current guidance? —] (]) 10:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Please leave your thoughts below. ] (]) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Note:''' I brought this up in the , but since responses mostly concerned the removal of parentheses, I’m starting a new RFC in hopes of getting more focused discussion on the question of name vs subject vs OR. My above exchanges with {{ping|Betty Logan|p=}} are relevant here, though. —] (]) 10:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Partial disambiguation should if anything be disallowed everywhere else instead if you want to resolve the inconsistency. This is fine as is. ] (]) 03:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''COMMENT''' This new RFC is simply a reformulation of the RFC above (see ]). Ending the RFC and starting another RFC by rephrasing the question because you are getting answers you disagree with is simply gaming the system. As explained in my first reply in the above RFC, '''''Series subject'' (film series)''' needs to be included in the naming convention to accommodate film series that do not have titles, such as the 1989 Batman series as opposed to the later ''The Dark Knight Trilogy''. Moreover, by ending the RFC above, I suggest that the proposer accepts the opposing arguments put to him above, so a fresh RFC with the goal of initiating the same alterations to the guideline is not necessary. ] (]) 10:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I agree with Pppery. Additionally, I don't understand this obsession with a primary for a partial disambiguation. The articles aren't human and don't actually care if they have the "primary" for a partial disambiguated title. This is just an overall bad idea. A partial title is already disambiguated, just not enough to be actually helpful. ] (]) 03:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
**I made no attempt to hide the fact that it was a reformulation of ''part'' of that RFC, and I explained my reasons: not because I was “getting answers I disagree with,” but because I was getting ''irrelevant'' answers. I am not here asking whether “film series” needs parentheses, which was what all the other opposers were opposing. I’m asking here whether it’s needed or appropriate to include “'''Series subject'''” in this guidance, which ''none'' of the other opposers commented on. And as I’ve said in my earlier responses to you both here and on your Talk page, the 1989 series of Batman films is named ]—and if it’s not, there’s the ] side of this RFC. —] (]) 10:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. I agree that the status quo is inconsistent. The answer is greater scrutiny of ], not this. ] (]) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
**:] applies to claims within an article, not to article titles. We are not making any specific claims by giving an article a name of our choosing. ] is the applicable policy here, and the only criterion that something like ] fails is "naturalness", and that is at the expense of consistency i.e. all series articles without formal titles are named after the series subject and disambiguated appropriately. ] (]) 11:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per others above. The point of parenthetical disambiguation is to sort out all articles that have the same name. We have primary-topic guidelines to determine if one topic is far more appropriate than the other topics ''of the same name'' (meaning no consideration for the parenthetical disambiguation) to be primary. Let's say ''Foo'' is a primary topic that is not a film, and there are two secondary-topic films called ''Foo'', one released in 2014 and one in 2024. All three topics are called ''Foo'' at the core of it. So that means the idea of "Foo (film)" as a topic name, for which "Foo (2014 film)" or "Foo (2024 film)" should be considered to be the primary topic, is false. There is no such thing as "Foo (film)" in the world. The "(film)" is Misplaced Pages's internal parenthetical-disambiguation labeling. On top of that, to disambiguate by release year is one of the most minimal parenthetical disambiguation approaches possible, so for film articles, there is even less need for this than disambiguating by name (which should be fine within secondary topics anyway). Editors fighting for partial-title matches are wanting to shave off four numbers and a space to declare a primary topic within a set of secondary topics. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
**::] also applies to ''implied'' claims. We’re not allowed to intentionally mislead readers by, for instance, making them think something has a name that it does not. (Incidentally, if “Batman” were ''not'' the name of the series, a name like '''Batman film series (1989)''' might better fit the ]. Whatever the article title, the series non-title shouldn’t be italicized.) —] (]) 11:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' as this will only cause greater confusion. ] (]) 05:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Alternate proposal:''' Replace “'''''Series subject'' (film series)'''” with “'''Franchise name (film series)'''”. This seems to better reflect actual usage, and an unitalicized title per ] is less misleading. —] (]) 12:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. The point of disambiguation is to make an article title not ambiguous. '''--]]''' 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::'''Oppose (yet again)''' It is not unusual for franchises to have spin-offs. A classic example would be something like Catwoman, which is still a character in the Batman franchise, but we wouldn't call a Catwoman series ''Batman (2004 film series)'' or something to that effect, we would name it after the subject of the films i.e. ''Catwoman (film series)''. The naming conventions are fine as they are, they lead to appropriate titles for the articles and any that are problematic can be dealt with on a individual basis. This level of interference by the IP is unnecessary and unhelpful, since it is trying to "fix" something which has worked fine for years. ] (]) 12:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It seems to me that most of the opposes here are opposing the concept of ] rather than judging its application in relation to film articles. I personally have no strong opinion as to its validity, but the short explanation for why it exists is that it was judged that in certain cases such as ], where the album is not the primary topic for the base name and yet is so much more prominent than other albums of that name that it was pointless to redirect people to the DAB page when the vast majority of them almost certainly wanted Michael Jackson. If that logic is sound, I see no reason why it should not be applied to this project. There are already clear examples of cases where the same logic should theoretically apply, such as ], which is widely viewed as one of the most important and acclaimed films of all time, to the point that despite its partially disambiguated title clearly violating this convention, a recent RM failed to get it to move to a fully disambiguated title. But even if you disagree with the reasoning for ], and I can see why, I would suggest that this guideline align to match that one, and meanwhile another RfC can be held to overturn that guideline if it is felt that the consensus has changed about it. That way if ] is overturned, this guideline can use its current rule, while if it is not this one can change to conform with the rest of the English Misplaced Pages. I feel that either outcome would be substantially less harmful than the current situation, in which every other article title follows a set guideline except articles on films for some incomprehensible reason. ] (]) 02:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' both. (For the alternate suggestion, a franchise and a series are two different things). I agree with Betty's comment above - 'if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it'. I'm not sure we need to change the wording, or to re-open something that's recently been so clearly sorted one way. - ] (]) 12:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:To my knowledge, this has ''not'' been recently sorted out. If you’re referring to the previous section, that primarily concerned the presence of parentheses around “film series” in these titles, which is a separate question. As for “if it ain’t broke”… if it encourages ] or otherwise misleading readers by presenting the “subject” (the lead character?) as a name for the series, it’s broke. On top of that, if there ''are'' no “subject” titles for articles on nameless series, it’s (a very small example of) ].—] (]) 13:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::There's no evidence of OR - can you present some? Most of these type of series are given an allcovering-epithet in the media, which is what we tend to replicate. There's no instruction creep either: there is a very, very small clarification in the MoS, that is all. - ] (]) 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:::All right—for the purpose of this argument, I’ll assume that one of the previously mentioned articles really ''is'' for a series with no name. Take ], for example (again). That article’s title is italicized in accordance with this guideline, indicating that it’s the ''name'' of that series of films. Consequently, that article’s opening sentence ''uses that name'' for that series of films. If there is '''no name for this series''', picking ''any'' term and using it as the name is OR at best (i.e. Misplaced Pages editors deciding what its name is) and deliberately misleading at worst. This kind of scenario is why I say this “''Series subject''” rule encourages OR.
:::And if it ''does'' have a name, I maintain that this rule is completely unsupported by practice—if we don’t ''use'' “series subject (film series)” titles, we shouldn’t claim that we do. Even if we do, “subject” is awfully vague, which, again, encourages OR. —] (]) 19:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' both suggestions. Can't say it any better than {{ul|Betty Logan}} has already done. ] (]) 15:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' We can all at least agree, I hope, that a term which is not a name should not be in italics. Right? There is no policy support (see ]) for italics in this sort of descriptive term. —] (]) 19:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*:Personally, I have no problem with de-italicising non-name/subject titles. But if this is what it is mainly about then it didn't need two RFCs to get here. ] (]) 03:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*::{{anchor|misleading}}It was mainly about… well, here, let me just lay out my thought process as plainly and clearly as I can, and hopefully everything will be explained:
*::*'''If''' all our '''<u>XXXX</u> (film series)''' titles use an established ''name'' for the series, there’s no point in offering an alternative that is simply never used in practice.
*::**We shouldn’t include unneeded rules.
*::*'''If''' we have any such titles that ''don’t'' use a series name, either I have never seen them or I couldn’t tell the difference. Assuming the 1989 film series does in fact have '''no name''':
*::**'''Fact:''' The article ''']''' is titled ''exactly'' as if “Batman” were the established '''name''' of that 1989 film series. This is typical of such titles.
*::**'''Fact:''' The article uses '''''Batman''''' as the unambiguous '''name of the series''' in its opening sentence. I can only assume this is typical of such articles.
*::***It’s not unreasonable to assume that this second point follows directly from the first. I.e., an editor may find an opening line like, “The 1989 Batman film series was a series about Batman who…”, and then, making a quite reasonable assumption from the title, mistakenly use the invented name in otherwise improving the lead: “''Batman'' is a film series…”.
*::Therefore:
*::*The existing guidance encourages making unnamed series (if we have any) ''indistinguishable'' from named series. The reader may never know the difference. This is horribly unencyclopedic and misleading.to both readers and editors.
*::So there’s the whole logic behind my position. Hope it helps. —] (]) 06:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::I was expecting someone to poke holes in my logic. Are there none? Like, if we have long-stable articles about series that explicitly have no name, it ''should'' be trivial to refute me here. —] (]) 19:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
*:::So… unless someone can explain how ] is incorrect/fallacious, I’m just gonna go ahead and change {{tq|“should be '''''Series name'' (film series)''' or '''''Series subject'' (film series)'''”}} to {{tq|“should be '''''Series name'' (film series)'''”}} to bring it more in line with both policy and actual practice. —] (]) 05:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::And if you do it will be changed back, since you clearly haven't obtained a consensus to alter the wording. People have stopped responding because this discussion has reached its ] phase. If you think the this RFC gives you a mandate to alter the wording then I suggest you file a request for formal closure. ] (]) 05:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
*:::::If you can poke holes in that argument of mine, I will happily ]. Otherwise, the advice to use “'''''Series subject'' (film series)'''” is demonstrably ''bad'' advice in violation of policy, even if that advice is applicable anywhere. (By the way, please stop misformatting your own comments, or things like this can happen.) —] (]) 05:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Let me put it this way. If you proceed with altering the MOS despite the fact nobody concurs with you then I will report you at ANI. If you think your arguments are so compelling that the strength of them overrides the objections above then request formal closure and see if the closing summary agrees with you. Either way, I am done discussing it with you. ] (]) 06:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::You’ve ''never'' discussed this with me. You claimed the ''Batman'' series was not titled ''Batman'' and let it lie. I’ve pointed out fallacies in your arguments; you’ve ignored those entirely while pointing out none in mine. —] (]) 06:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Question:''' In cases where the '''series subject''' ''is not used as the name of the series'', how should we title the article? I’m talking no official name, no ], nothing; all we have is the ''subject'' of the series which no reliable source uses in place of a name. What should we call our article about it? Or do we even need to consider this question when it’s purely hypothetical? (''Is'' it purely hypothetical?) —] (]) 06:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
**Some examples (offered at ]) include ] and ], neither of which use the format put forth here, and both of which fit the ] criteria better than if they had “(film series)” anywhere in the titles. I’m still having trouble finding any cases where a “series subject” type title does not qualify as at least a ]. Anyone? —] (]) 23:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


=== Does this apply to subtitles? ===
IP, drop the stick and walk away. No-one is supporting your proposal, and everyone has opposed for good reasons. That should tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree. This thread (and the one you've opened up below) are increasingly disruptive and you are demonstrating all the signs of ]. It matters not one iota where you like the phrasing of this tiny, tiny piece of the MoS, the consensus is against you, as should be obvious. - ] (]) 09:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Reviewing the current entries at ]
{{archivebottom}}
: I just started a RM for ]
: ] survived a RM trying to fully disambiguate it, but it is one of the greatest films of all time and the others are both borderline notable and not really called this so this is a justifiable ]
: The other entries are ], ], and ]. In each of these cases the film is ambiguous with another film with an extra subtitle. Am I reading the guideline correctly that these should be moved to ] ("2009 film" is still ambiguous with '']'', yuck!), ], and ]? Or does the guideline only apply to films with the exact same name? ] ] 00:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
::This was already addressed in your unsuccessful RM of ]. The answer is that ] applies since the other films are already naturally disambiguated with their full or alternative titles. ] (]) 06:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I suggest that the absence of a subtitle does not disambiguate a topic unless other same-named films that have subtitles would not be reasonably referred to without their subtitles. In the case of ''Minecraft'', it may not be reasonable to refer to the documentary simply as ''Minecraft''. The closure summary of the RM also referred to the relative obscurity of the documentary as well as "SMALLDETAILS". Also, of course, the outcome of any particular RM is not necessarily a perfect representation of Misplaced Pages's collective thinking. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree with BarrelProof, subtitles are often omitted and although we prefer natural disambiguation that doesn't mean a different film without a subtitle that can't be naturally disambiguated stays at an ambiguous title. ''']''' (]) 17:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


=== June 2024 update – Proposed PDAB film criteria ===
Review requested at ]. —] (]) 22:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, guys. I have been thinking about potential criteria to allow PDABs for films. According to my proposal, a film article would be eligible for a PDAB title when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied (if more are satisfied, the eligibility would be even higher):
#The film article has a high pageview ratio with the other film (if ]) or a high combined pageview ratio if there are multiple other films. The threshold for a "high pageview ratio" would be decided by consensus.
#The film is part of either a film series or a film/media franchise. Examples would include ] films, ] and ].
#The ] selected the film for preservation in the United States ] as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Examples include ], ] and ].
Please let me know your thoughts on this proposal. ] (]) 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


:I have to continue to oppose this. Parenthetical disambiguation terms are internal and nonexistent in the real world. Nobody but specialists types them out. This push of sussing out a "primary topic" from within a set of secondary topics using similar parenthetical disambiguation terms amounts to shaving off a few alphanumeric characters within the term for no actual gain. Allowing this just sets up for more and more discussions about which secondary topic is more primary than others, which is a time sink. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
=== Is there any article on an unnamed film series? ===
: Nothing has changed since before. Still '''oppose''' ] ] 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


== 2016 film with two titles, IMDb calls it the devil and the deep blue sea, and uses that HTML title, and the Misplaced Pages article is The Book of Love ==
Simple, direct question. Can anyone name a Misplaced Pages article about an unnamed film series? (I keep seeing ] claimed as an example, but that series is quite clearly '''named''' “''Batman''.”) —] (]) 02:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


How in wiki code to disambiguate the above? I've been reading up on the how-to's but nothing fits other than creating a middling disambiguation page, a stand-alone stopping point or middle ground if you will, between the two titles- QUESTION. There's no way in wiki code for the main article which is called The Book of Love 2016 film, to just have a small banner at the top mentioning that the film has XYZ as a second working title? Thank you.<br>-From <b>Peter</b> {a.k.a. ] <i>(] | ])</i>} 01:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
== How is a “series subject” determined? ==
{{archivetop|More IP trolling on the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over... ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC))}}
Since “'''Series subject (film series)'''” remains in the {{article section|Film series}} guidance, I have to ask: How is the “series subject” determined? Main character’s name? Franchise name? Overriding theme? I ask because I genuinely don’t know. Determining a series ''name'' is pretty straightforward: ] or ]; but if the “series subject” concept is explained anywhere—''anywhere''—I’ve missed it, so I’d be grateful if someone could please explain or point me in the right direction. —] (]) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

Latest revision as of 01:37, 4 October 2024

WikiProject Film
General information ()
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Israeli cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages has articles on films not movies

Made it clear that using the disambiguator (film) is actually a rule - that is; using (movie) or similar is not just alternative usage, it is not accepted. CapnZapp (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

How to properly disambiguate films from the same year?

What is the proper procedure when you can't disambiguate films with the same title in the same year easily "by country"? E.G. Wolf (2021 drama film) vs. Wolf (2021 thriller film)? Are you supposed to disambiguate by director? Or by "genre"? The latter seems problematic to me, which is why I have reservations about the "Wolf" example above. Or is there some other way?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film) and Wolf (2021 Indian film) too bad? —El Millo (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It would go by geographical location of the owning company before it would be director/genre/etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a mix
By director: Carmen (1915 Cecil B. DeMille film), Carmen (1915 Raoul Walsh film)
By genre: The Visitor (2007 drama film), The Visitor (2007 short film)
By country: Michael (2011 Austrian film), Michael (2011 Indian film)
Personally, in the case of Wolf, I'd stick with the current page titles (genre) and def. avoid country in this case, as one of them is a co-production. Lugnuts 19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambig'ing "by genre" is generally a terrible, imprecise way to do it, to the point where WP:NCTV goes to great lengths to avoid that. Diambig'ing "by format (e.g. "animated" vs. "live-action", "short film" can also work in this case) is vastly preferable, where applicable, but disambig'ing "by genre" is a pretty bad idea (e.g. "thriller" is actually a "subgenre" of "drama", so how are we even disambiguating here?!). My advice: if you can't disambig. "by year", "by country", or "by format", then the next choice should be something like "by director" – disambiguating "by genre" shouldn't even really be an option, or it should be a super-last-resort option, at best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The example "by genre" that Lugnuts brought up is also incorrect as "short film" isn't a genre and the short film could still be a drama, so the disambiguation doesn't work. The Visitor (2007 drama film) should be The Visitor (2007 feature film) to be properly unambiguous. —El Millo (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that genre is not the way to go with this. As IJB states it is imprecise. At this moment the one labeled drama has no sourced info describing it as such (or as any other genre for that matter) and the one labeled thriller includes a reference whose title is "Wolf Movie Review: Engaging psychological drama derailed by a shaky third act" and another ref that says watching it is a thrilling experience but does not ascribe the film to that genre. I have a vague memory that we used the directors name as the dab years ago but I could easily be wrong. In this case I think using the names is the best choice. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that genre isn't the best disambig to use. Director would probably be the best (or least-worst) choice for this case. Shame that the Irish-Polish film wasn't a Hungarian production, then at least it could be Hungary like the wolf... Lugnuts 08:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Your director examples are like that because they are both American films. Thus, they had to be taken to another level because you couldn't use "1915 American film". Just because I'm not sure why this wasn't mentiond from the getgo. But this is directly in the guidelin: "For multiple films of the same name that are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin (adjective), like Noise (2007 Australian film) and Noise (2007 American film); or contrasting descriptive adjectives, such as Heidi (2005 live-action film) and Heidi (2005 animated film) or Skin (2018 feature film) and Skin (2018 short film)." Notice how we started with country of origin, and then moved to the next disambiguation (animated vs. live-action). The next one would be akin to genre, but again we started with country of origin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Bignole I'm probably wrong about this but I sense that guideline comes from a time when the film project was more simplistic (and I don't use that word as a negative) in its use of "country" - since then we've had discussions about the term in relation to whether "county where filming took place" or "country where the production company was based" etc, as the defining factor. I'm pretty sure the use of country in both the infobox and the lede has altered over the years. It might be worth a discussion to update the guideline you mention. My apologies if I am way off base on this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You're right, the term has had some debate over the years, but I don't think that's a problem with this guideline. We've had more issues with films and identifying a defining "genre" for the film. There are more edit wars and debates over whether a film is a comedy, drama, superhero, action, romance, etc. film than there are as to whether it is a US film versus a UK film. Genres of current films are also more fluid today than the country of origin of a film. Additionally, there are more roles to making a film than the director. Saying "Superman (1978 Richard Donner film)" makes it seem like the most important fact is that it is a Donner film and minimizes the roles of the writer, producer, etc. By saying the country as the second disambiguation (after year), the most you're going to have to worry about is whether or not there is disagreement over the country of origin, which really does not happen that much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I should add that two films with the same title in the same year doesn't occur very often so your point is fine. IMO the two Wolf films that this thread is about should be moved sooner rather than later MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The country of origin tends to be the country of the production company, not the country where filming takes place. These two films' countries aren't in question, their leads list their countr(ies) of origin. The "problem" is that one of them has dual "nationality", that's why it seeems it shouldn't be moved to distinction by country, but I see no problem with doing it. There are no length problems here, since the title is one four-letter word and the countries' names are rather short as well. Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film) and Wolf (2021 Indian film) isn't bad at all. —El Millo (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree that genre disambig is bad. Usually I'd be put off by the hyphenated dual nationality for the one but the scourge of director primacy is much worse than that, as Bignole implies, so I agree with Facu-el Millo about using nationality being the least worst option. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
+1 for fourth optional choice to disamb' by would be director. Genre is not as factual or black and white as DIRECTOR person, and genre seems interpretive or subjective to me, whereas a director would be crazy to release two films in one year under the same exact title!
-From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 01:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
What about language? Most readers wouldn't know the English-language film is an Irish-Polish production, while they would definitely know it's in English. Had it been a production of a single anglophone country, the countries would have been perfectly intuitive disambiguators, but readers couldn't be quite sure if the "2021 Irish-Polish film" is definitely what they're looking for upon seeing it. There are precedents, like Dracula (1931 English-language film) vs Dracula (1931 Spanish-language film), even though many of them seem to be old multiple-language versions. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason you have "English language" and "Spanish language" for Dracula is because they were both US productions by Universal in the same year. So, in that special case it made sense that you would go down further so something else that separated them out. That's more of an outlier than something that needs a rule.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

When was WP:PRIMARYFILM added to the page?

There can be no such thing. We have an editor now at WP:RM undiscussed moves here arguing on the basis of this shortcut that there is such a thing as primary film rather than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This shortcut should be removed from page and the shortcut deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you disputing the technical shortcut or the content it leads to? Erik (talk | contrib) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The shortcut, it suggests that there is such a thing as primary film, there is not. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Having a shortcut to this section of the MOS is useful. The section simply stipulates how to disambiguate film titles when the film is not the primary topic. The editor at that discussion quoting this guideline is not making the case that there is a "primary film", they are correctly opposing the move on the grounds that MOS:FILM does not do partial disambiguation. The nominator of the move is the one incorrectly arguing that there is a "primary film", but he is not quoting this guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
So what is the point of a guideline link to a guideline that (correctly) says the opposite? Or maybe that is the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Formerly untitled/upcoming media

After a months-long discussion at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, there was no consensus to create a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" that point to creative works no longer untitled or upcoming, despite clear consensus from past RfD discussions that these redirects should be deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). As an alternate proposal, I suggest the following be added to WP:NCFILM, which can then be referenced in future RfD discussions: After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Untitled Misplaced Pages film, Upcoming Misplaced Pages film, and Misplaced Pages (upcoming film) are no longer accurate and now misleading to readers. These redirects should be nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion when this happens, preferably after all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated. Once again pinging participants of the previous discussion: @Steel1943, Cryptic, Thryduulf, Kusma, Jclemens, Tavix, A7V2, StarTrekker, Shhhnotsoloud, Mellohi!, Buidhe, Pppery, BD2412, Jontesta, TNstingray, Oiyarbepsy, ValarianB, and Tamzin. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think that's fine. Perhaps provide a link to the relevant discussions. BD2412 T 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your perseverance @InfiniteNexus:. The text looks good to me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is sorely needed.★Trekker (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This is fine guidance for now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • As guidance, its not bad but "preferably after all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated" is not strong enough - all incomming mainspace links must be retargetted before any nomination, and there needs to be a delay between the article being moved and the redirect being nominated for deletion to ensure that as many people as possible are able to find the article at the new location (this is especially important when the new title takes any form of disambiguation). There should also be a sanity check in there to ensure that, as far as possible, people are looking for the article at the new rather than old title. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    You are free to make those objections in the RfD discussions itself, as you have done so in the past (to little success, I might add). The guideline should simply reflect the consensus on what to do with these redirects, which is deletion. Also, it isn't a requirement to clear all incoming links before nominating a redirect to RfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    It isn't a requirement to clear all incoming links before nominating a redirect to RfD indeed it is not because it is not the correct thing to do in all circumstances. It is however something that needs to be done for all of these types of redirects - its harmful enough to the encyclopaedia that we delete these redirects while they are still in use, creating redlinks in our own articles is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face. Similarly the delay between moving the article and nominating for deletion - at the very least we need to allow time for search engines to catch up. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This sounds fine in general. re: Thryduulf's objection, I'd be fine changing preferably to should, but think must is perhaps too strong. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    Why is "must" too strong? When is it ever going to be a good idea to nominate these redirects for deletion before all the incoming links are fixed? Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    They can be fixed afterward ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    That doesn't answer either question. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages will not be broken because of some red links possibly getting left behind. There are enough editors in the Film Project that any redirects would be taken care of quite swiftly. Mike Allen 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    In which there are enough editors to fix the redirects before we make it harder for our readers to find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with this proposal Mike Allen 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)



I have added in the text to WP:UFILM, with a few slight adjustments and minor c/e. Thryduulf, I hope this satisifes your concern regarding updating incoming links. Feel free to perform additional c/e as needed. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles (a/an/the) as disambiguators

Hi all - I recently participated in a requested move discussion (at Talk:Endless (2020 film)) where it was stated that the terms a/an/the are generally, on their own, seen as insufficient to distinguish titles of films from one another. I was curious to see if this was the case, so I did a bit of searching - but the first applicable case I found, Prestige (film) vs. The Prestige (film), seemed to contradict the claim. However, I'm not well versed in this topic area, so I wanted to bring my question in front of people who are better informed about film-article titling practices than I am. My thoughts are mainly as follows:

  • Is it the case that a/an/the alone are normally seen as insufficient disambiguation for the titles of film articles?
  • If it is the case, WP:NCFILM should be amended to say so explicitly, as this would constitute an exception in the otherwise determinative policy at WP:SMALLDETAILS.

ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, a/an/the should be sufficient in disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
agree... WP:SMALLDETAILS says an article would be sufficient. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

OVA

Should original video animations be disambiguated as (OVA)? I'm asking because someone tagged Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA) as not having a correct name per naming guidelines, but I looked through other OVAs, and many of them are disambiguated as such. I think this needs to be added to the guideline. TarkusAB 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Willow

Apparently, there was an RM in November of last year which attempted to move Willow (film) to Willow (1988 film), per WP:PFILM, but it was closed as no consensus. Looking at WP:PDABLIST#(film), this is — as far as we know — the only article on Misplaced Pages which doesn't conform to our guideline. What can and should we do about this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

RMs challenging PFILM

information Note: Two RMs have been opened directly challenging WP:PFILM:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

General conventions

I find it somewhat odd that this page doesn't have more "general" guidance on how film articles are named. There's only that small blurb at the top of the page, but it only mentions capitalization and italics. At a minimum, I think the following points should be noted:

  • Normally, we use the official title as indicated by the billing block, MPAA certificate, or copyright offices
  • We use the title used at the time of the original release (e.g. Raiders of the Lost Ark)
  • Sometimes, we use an alternative common name (e.g. Rogue One)
  • We don't use international titles (e.g. The Fate of the Furious)
  • If the article title differs from the actual title, the latter should be the first thing in the lead (e.g. Borat)

InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking:
General

In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its billing block, MPAA certificate, official press releases, or government copyright agencies.

If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be the bolded term that opens the lead sentence.

Did I miss or go overboard with anything? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I personally think this is a great idea, and the examples you came up with are stellar. If I had to nitpick, I would only suggest finding ways to improve the formatting & spacing. Having it like that line after line just strikes me as cluttered. Maybe eliminating the bullet points in front of each line of examples would be a start. We could also highlight the topic for each example to make it stand out more.
This is just spitballing, but maybe something more like this:
  • Stylized titles – It is common for films to be stylized differently in promotional materials.
Examples: Seven (1995 film), Ghostbusters (2016 film), Birdman (film)
  • Onscreen titles – It is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.
Examples: Dune (2021 film), Iron Man 3, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
  • Retroactive changes – Use the title used at the time of the film's release, disregarding retroactive title changes.
Examples: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Dark Phoenix (film), Star Wars (film)
...
Just my 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Updated version:

In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its billing block, MPAA certificate, official press releases, or government copyright agencies.

If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be the bolded term that opens the lead sentence.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I am going to add this in now, seeing as there has been no opposition. As this wording documents existing and longstanding practices, I don't feel additional !votes of approval are strictly necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Special:Diff/1183755278 – How so? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If the article title is X and the film's actual title is Y, then it would be acceptable to open with something like: "X, theatrically released as Y, ..." or "X, officially titled Y, ..." While there may be some instances where you'd want to mention Y first, it would seem unnecessary to enforce a particular approach. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Because we bold the article title, official names and alternative names. That is clearly stated in MOS:BOLDLEAD, MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Unrelated to my comment, but also relevant, this is a naming convention guideline, bolding names does not belong here and is a guideline fork. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms. I have never seen a film article's lead structured the other way round, or any article about a proper name, for that matter. Can you give an example? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Borat. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Huh? That article very much does not open with "Borat, officially titled ..." InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you even remember what text I removed? You wrote the bolded term that opens the lead sentence which can be understood to mean that other terms should not be bolded. If everything should be bolded, why mention it? If you actually meant to say, that the official film title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence then you should have written it like that. Either way, again, that belongs in MOS:FILM and not here. Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Birdman (film) is an example of an article starting with the short name and not with its official long name Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Because you just changed it? If an article title is a stylization rather than the official title, the stylization should of course not be the first title that opens the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you ignore sources that contradict your beliefs anything works I guess. So if the Library of Congress is not good enough, how about the studio that distributed the film?, BFI or one of film's most important film critics? It's pretty easy finding important sources claiming this is the official name. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
There are certainly going to be contradictions, but the billing block credits and the U.S. copyright listing are clearly the most authoritative sources. You are welcome to discuss further on that article's talk page if you wish. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant, the actual title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence. I am not calling for the other titles to not be in bold. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better if you provided an example of a situation that illustrates what you were trying to accomplish, in case we are misunderstanding. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Borat. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLDLEAD: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."The article title Borat qualifies as a widely accepted name and should therefore appear first per this guideline. Birdman is a similar case. There are always exceptions, of course, but that is generally how I'd approach it, especially when the film's actual title is very long, as it is with Borat. I'm not sure we need any additional guidance here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Let me just add that since there are multiple variations of the title Borat, the current approach in that article works fine. It's one of the few exceptions to the general guidance that the article title appears first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I wrote above, I have never seen an article about a proper noun that does this. MOS:FIRST gives United Kingdom as an example. For films specifically, we have Borat, Rogue One, The Avengers (2012 film), Frozen II, etc. We also have NASA, Julius Caesar (play), New York City, Amazon (company), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
If we focus on common names (shorthand titles) vs official names (lengthier titles), it happens quite often where the common name is listed first: The Empire Strikes Back, The X-Files, Battlefield Earth, Tower of London, North Korea, and Rhode Island (where the official name isn't even mentioned until the last paragraph in the lead). I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that says you have to specify the official title first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
For the first three examples, the shorter title is the official name. As far as I know (and no one thus far has been able to prove otherwise), no film articles list an alternative title first before "officially known as". The intent of the wording was to document this standard practice on film articles, but if there is a desire not to "mandate" this (even though guidelines aren't mandatory), I can live with that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps my film examples weren't the best, but it does seem to come down to the sources you choose to go by. Episode V is in the official title at BOM and The Numbers, and Borat's full title is listed as an alternate title at AFI. And we definitely know official titles aren't always enforced as the first occurrence in other non-film GA and FA articles. If WP:FILM wants to recognize that as a common practice, then perhaps it would be better to place it in MOS:FILM as Gonnym suggests and take a deeper dive on the subject at WT:MOSFILM. I'm definitely not opposed to documenting a common practice if we want to ensure consistency across our film articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps that is a larger question to discuss at WT:FILM, which source(s) are the more authoritative when it comes to determining a film's "official" title. Personally, I think the billing block is king since it's essentially a form of credits, but maybe that's just me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Started a discussion at WT:FILM#Determining a film's official title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200162185/
  2. https://www.20thcenturystudios.com/movies/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance
  3. https://www.bfi.org.uk/film/c9f41790-6dd7-5446-b846-2128e0a664e8/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance
  4. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/birdman-2014

Proposed allowance of PDABs for films

I'd like to propose a review of the WP:PRIMARYFILM guideline, which I view as inconsistent. It makes no sense to me that films are on such a high pedestal that they can trump almost all other forms of WP:PARTIALDISAMBIGUATION (such as those for people or other mediums ).

This is the case not only for clear WP:PDABPRIMARY titles such as Avatar (2009 film), Frozen (2013 film), Parasite (2019 film), Split (2016 American film) and Titanic (1997 film) but also for many WP:TWODABS between a more well-known film and a relatively obscure film that most readers frankly would not know even exists without a Misplaced Pages article (such as Cinderella and Cinderella , Suicide Squad and Suicide Squad , The Wolf of Wall Street and The Wolf of Wall Street , etc.), some of which have pageview ratios of 300:1 or more. This may even include possible WP:PDABREDIRECTS (such as Mulan for Mulan rather than Mulan ).

Please leave your thoughts below. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose Partial disambiguation should if anything be disallowed everywhere else instead if you want to resolve the inconsistency. This is fine as is. Pppery (alt) (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Pppery. Additionally, I don't understand this obsession with a primary for a partial disambiguation. The articles aren't human and don't actually care if they have the "primary" for a partial disambiguated title. This is just an overall bad idea. A partial title is already disambiguated, just not enough to be actually helpful. Gonnym (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. I agree that the status quo is inconsistent. The answer is greater scrutiny of WP:PDAB, not this. 162 etc. (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others above. The point of parenthetical disambiguation is to sort out all articles that have the same name. We have primary-topic guidelines to determine if one topic is far more appropriate than the other topics of the same name (meaning no consideration for the parenthetical disambiguation) to be primary. Let's say Foo is a primary topic that is not a film, and there are two secondary-topic films called Foo, one released in 2014 and one in 2024. All three topics are called Foo at the core of it. So that means the idea of "Foo (film)" as a topic name, for which "Foo (2014 film)" or "Foo (2024 film)" should be considered to be the primary topic, is false. There is no such thing as "Foo (film)" in the world. The "(film)" is Misplaced Pages's internal parenthetical-disambiguation labeling. On top of that, to disambiguate by release year is one of the most minimal parenthetical disambiguation approaches possible, so for film articles, there is even less need for this than disambiguating by name (which should be fine within secondary topics anyway). Editors fighting for partial-title matches are wanting to shave off four numbers and a space to declare a primary topic within a set of secondary topics. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as this will only cause greater confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The point of disambiguation is to make an article title not ambiguous. --woodensuperman 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems to me that most of the opposes here are opposing the concept of WP:PDAB rather than judging its application in relation to film articles. I personally have no strong opinion as to its validity, but the short explanation for why it exists is that it was judged that in certain cases such as Thriller (album), where the album is not the primary topic for the base name and yet is so much more prominent than other albums of that name that it was pointless to redirect people to the DAB page when the vast majority of them almost certainly wanted Michael Jackson. If that logic is sound, I see no reason why it should not be applied to this project. There are already clear examples of cases where the same logic should theoretically apply, such as Vertigo (film), which is widely viewed as one of the most important and acclaimed films of all time, to the point that despite its partially disambiguated title clearly violating this convention, a recent RM failed to get it to move to a fully disambiguated title. But even if you disagree with the reasoning for WP:PDAB, and I can see why, I would suggest that this guideline align to match that one, and meanwhile another RfC can be held to overturn that guideline if it is felt that the consensus has changed about it. That way if WP:PDAB is overturned, this guideline can use its current rule, while if it is not this one can change to conform with the rest of the English Misplaced Pages. I feel that either outcome would be substantially less harmful than the current situation, in which every other article title follows a set guideline except articles on films for some incomprehensible reason. Ladtrack (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this apply to subtitles?

Reviewing the current entries at WP:PDAB#(film)

I just started a RM for Fuck (film)
Vertigo (film) survived a RM trying to fully disambiguate it, but it is one of the greatest films of all time and the others are both borderline notable and not really called this so this is a justifiable WP:IAR
The other entries are 2012 (film), Turbo (film), and ? (film). In each of these cases the film is ambiguous with another film with an extra subtitle. Am I reading the guideline correctly that these should be moved to 2012 (2009 theatrical film) ("2009 film" is still ambiguous with 2012: Supernova, yuck!), Turbo (2013 film), and ? (2011 film)? Or does the guideline only apply to films with the exact same name? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This was already addressed in your unsuccessful RM of Minecraft (film). The answer is that WP:SMALLDETAILS applies since the other films are already naturally disambiguated with their full or alternative titles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that the absence of a subtitle does not disambiguate a topic unless other same-named films that have subtitles would not be reasonably referred to without their subtitles. In the case of Minecraft, it may not be reasonable to refer to the documentary simply as Minecraft. The closure summary of the RM also referred to the relative obscurity of the documentary as well as "SMALLDETAILS". Also, of course, the outcome of any particular RM is not necessarily a perfect representation of Misplaced Pages's collective thinking. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with BarrelProof, subtitles are often omitted and although we prefer natural disambiguation that doesn't mean a different film without a subtitle that can't be naturally disambiguated stays at an ambiguous title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 update – Proposed PDAB film criteria

Hey, guys. I have been thinking about potential criteria to allow PDABs for films. According to my proposal, a film article would be eligible for a PDAB title when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied (if more are satisfied, the eligibility would be even higher):

  1. The film article has a high pageview ratio with the other film (if WP:TWODABS) or a high combined pageview ratio if there are multiple other films. The threshold for a "high pageview ratio" would be decided by consensus.
  2. The film is part of either a film series or a film/media franchise. Examples would include Disney Princess films, Red (2010 film) and Sing (2016 American film).
  3. The Library of Congress selected the film for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Examples include Fantasia (1940 film), The Music Man (1962 film) and Psycho (1960 film).

Please let me know your thoughts on this proposal. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to continue to oppose this. Parenthetical disambiguation terms are internal and nonexistent in the real world. Nobody but specialists types them out. This push of sussing out a "primary topic" from within a set of secondary topics using similar parenthetical disambiguation terms amounts to shaving off a few alphanumeric characters within the term for no actual gain. Allowing this just sets up for more and more discussions about which secondary topic is more primary than others, which is a time sink. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Nothing has changed since before. Still oppose * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

2016 film with two titles, IMDb calls it the devil and the deep blue sea, and uses that HTML title, and the Misplaced Pages article is The Book of Love

How in wiki code to disambiguate the above? I've been reading up on the how-to's but nothing fits other than creating a middling disambiguation page, a stand-alone stopping point or middle ground if you will, between the two titles- QUESTION. There's no way in wiki code for the main article which is called The Book of Love 2016 film, to just have a small banner at the top mentioning that the film has XYZ as a second working title? Thank you.
-From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 01:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: