Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Placement of alternate titles[edit]

I have a question regarding the lead of the article Taare Zameen Par. 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. Ωphois 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. Betty Logan (talk) 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. Film Fan (talk) 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. Ωphois 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Between films of the same name[edit]

Betty Logan expanded the "Between films of the same name" section here, but it was reverted by Dicklyon here. 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 WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 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 gladiator. Another example is Death at a Funeral being a disambiguation page for two films of the same name. Yet another one is The Day the Earth Stood Still, 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. Erik (talk | contribs) 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 Deep Throat; 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 Miracle on 34th Street is a legit example. Dicklyon (talk) 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 Miracle on 34th Street as an example of a film that is a primary topic that has its own host of secondary topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 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. Tony (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
@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? Erik (talk | contribs) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment @Dicklyon

  • I only actually added a single sentence 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.

Betty Logan (talk) 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 WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 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 WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dicklyon (talk) 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? Betty Logan (talk) 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[edit]

If a film's title is ambiguous (for example, shares its title with one or more other films or other topics on Wikipedia, 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 WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 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

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 Noise (2007 Australian film) and Noise (2007 American film); or a descriptive adjective, such as Heidi (2005 live-action film) and Heidi (2005 animated film).

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. Betty Logan (talk) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 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. Betty Logan (talk) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 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? Dicklyon (talk) 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

If a film's title is ambiguous, disambiguation will be necessary (unless the film name is determined by consensus to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 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.

  • 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2013 (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. Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
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? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2013 (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. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added them in, since everyone seems to be ok with this aspect of the revision. Betty Logan (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
What about these three?

Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a requested move at Talk:Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 Asylum film), actually. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 May 2013 (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. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

From other topics[edit]

In this revert, 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 primary topic". Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried something simpler. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2013 (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. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (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 WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)? 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? Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ocean's Eleven[edit]

There is a request to move Ocean's Eleven (2001 film) to Ocean's Eleven and to move Ocean's 11 (1960 film) to Ocean's 11. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change[edit]

"If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, compare all film topics and determine whether one is more prominent than the others."

I know the 1997 film is not the primary topic of the title "Titanic", but it is the primary topic of the title "Titanic (film)". 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 Wikipedia users have never heard of. I was actually the one who tried this under a different account before I was made aware of this guideline. This still applies to "The Avengers (film)" as well, but the redirect "Avengers (film)" actually already violates this guideline (the barely-noteworthy 1998 film could just as easily be misnamed without the "The"). Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. If something is disambiguated, it needs to be fully disambiguated, otherwise it is still ambiguous. "Avengers (film)" is pointing to the wrong place - I'll change that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? Isn't that what hatnotes are for? Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't have secondary primary topics. --Rob Sinden (talk) 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 songs and albums. Hijiri 88 (やや) 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 WP:PDAB discusses the situation further. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That essay lists a bunch of articles in non-film categories that currently run against the trend here, and a bunch of other redirects in non-film categories that also run against this trend. Why can't NCFILM follow the precedent of Angel (TV series), or Lost (TV series)? Hijiri 88 (やや) 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 WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 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. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, "Angel (TV series)" is a redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I said "trend here" -- don't misquote me. I specifically stated that Angel (TV series) 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. Hijiri 88 (やや) 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. There a great many more examples that go the other way. It seems you just want to change the guidelines so that two pages you mention can be moved. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, why do you call The Avengers (1998 film) "barely noteworthy"? That's clearly not the case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 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 WP:PRIMARY 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 2012 film article than read the other one. This means that of the roughly 4,000 people who searched for either "The Avengers (film)" or "Avengers (film)", 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.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you are going to disambiguate something there is no point only partially disambiguating the page. WP:PRECISE 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. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You missed off the word "Usually" from the start of that definition from WP:PRECISE. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 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 WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so what else is there? Betty Logan (talk) 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. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 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. Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
But what about all the other articles that violate your interpretation of PRECISE? I could just as easily say that it's a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to include veiled reference to the titles of much more obscure films in the titles of articles like "The Avengers (2012 film)" and "Titanic (1997 film)". Hijiri 88 (やや) 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, Wikipedia 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. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 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. Hijiri 88 (やや) 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. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The policy is WP:NATURAL. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's automatic drop-down menu which shows "The Avengers (2012 film)" when one begins typing "The Av..." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 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 Wikipedia'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. Betty Logan (talk) 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 The Avengers (film) and Avengers (film) 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. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

3D film titling[edit]

I've noticed a lack of uniformity here when it comes to 3D films. In the case of Dredd (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 Pompeii, which has it's official poster as Pompeii in 3D. However, go back and we find Piranha 3D, Piranha DD (I just renamed 3DD to DD, will revert after posting this), Silent Hill: Revelation 3D, and A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas. 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 Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over). However, I think we can find a solution. It's even inconsistent between Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and IMDb. IMDb is user-created and not a reliable source, however (much like Wikipedia itself) and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are run by professionals and are reliable sources. In the case of Harold & Kumar, Dredd, and Pompeii, the 3D is exempted on Metacritic. Ditto for Rotten Tomatoes. However, in the case of Silent Hill, Piranha 3D (technically 3-D) and 3DD include it. And yet, Rotten Tomatoes does not include 3D for Silent Hill. 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. Corvoe (speak to me) 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. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Dredd is just Dredd, 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. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention for film award categories and pages[edit]

What is the naming convention regarding film award categories?

Award winner categories: In most cases the naming is like this - "Best CATEGORY-WINNER AWARD-NAME winners" like in Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners, but there are others as well, such as Category:Best Actress HKFA, Category:Ophir Award winners: Actresses, Category:Silver Bear for Best Actress winners and Category:Genie Award winners for Best Actress.

Award page: In most cases the naming is like this - "AWARD-NAME for CATEGORY-WINNER" like in Academy Award for Best Actor, while others appear as well such as Bavarian Film Awards (Best Acting). Festival names for an award appear different as well as "Best CATEGORY-WINNER Award (FESTIVAL-NAME Film Festival) like Best Actor Award (Annecy Film Festival). --Gonnym (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
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 three years ago. If there isn't any objection I think we should go for a standard naming convention as follows:

How would a standard apply? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ring Cinema, 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". --Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another issue I've noticed is regarding award names. Some of the award pages are in plural form, such as: Academy Awards Empire Awards Genie Awards Meril Prothom Alo Awards while others are in the singular form, such as: Golden Globe Award Emmy Award Saturn Award. Is there any reason not to choose one form and apply it for all award pages? --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Would this proposal only apply to the names of articles? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
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.--Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why parentheses?[edit]

Parentheses around “film series” should not be removed. Other, unresolved issues are being treated in an RFC in the next section. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please read the RFC below. In § 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If the series had a formal name—such as The Twilight Saga—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 [1]), 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. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The consistency is what's misguided. If an article is about the Harry Potter film series, there's no reason for Wikipedia to make "Harry Potter" a definite article. Something like James Bond in film makes more sense to me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCFILM#Film series currently instructs, “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, James Bond in film is not “James Bond (film series).” And most significantly, we don’t appear to have any articles titled Series subject (film series) where subject and name are not identical.174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC); edited 04:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, however, it would be preferable to give an example of the alternative case where these is no name, e.g.:

For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be Series name (film series), such as Harry Potter (film series). Where the series does not have a common title, use the most natural description, such as James Bond in film. When trilogies are often referred to as such by reliable sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy (e.g., The Three Colors trilogy), 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.

sroc 💬 06:21, 19 February 2015 (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 Batman movie properties on Wikipedia. There is Batman (serial), Batman (1966 film) and Batman (1989 film); all three need to be disambiguated since the main Batman article occupies the title. We also have Batman (1989 film series) and The Dark Knight Trilogy; 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 Batman in film 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 Harry Potter (film series) to Harry Potter in film then it actually creates inconsistency, because the article is about a single series. Betty Logan (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • In the title “Batman (1989 film series),” 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 First film's name (film series)”? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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 Harry Potter (film series) It also has implications for something like Bourne (film series), which I don't think would be improved by calling The Bourne Ultimatum (film series). In fact, both would seem to conflict with WP:PRECISE. 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. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Batman is a superhero film series featuring …”. So that series is named Batman; call it that. But Batman (film series) 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 The Bourne Identity) 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.
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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR: Series subject titles are descriptive titles. Treat them as such. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That’s the thing—I don’t have any examples of “series subject” titles, other than ones like “James Bond 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… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Betty Logan 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. --Tuluqaruk (talk) 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. Onel5969 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Batman example above, why wouldn't Batman film series, 1989–97 be sufficient? -- Wikipedical (talk) 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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. Betty Logan (talk) 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, Batman (1989 film series) should open with Batman The Batman film series 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Confusion of terms?[edit]

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? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:COMMONNAME 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? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Series subject as a name[edit]

Despite this RfC was a reformulation of the previous RfC, there is still no consensus to support these proposals. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to WP:NCFILM#Film series, “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 Wikipedia 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 original research) for us to choose one ourselves (the “subject”) and present it as if it were the name, per the current guidance? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I brought this up in the previous section, 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 @Betty Logan are relevant here, though. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMENT This new RFC is simply a reformulation of the RFC above (see #Why parentheses?). 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. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2015 (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 Batman—and if it’s not, there’s the WP:OR side of this RFC. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      WP:Original research 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. WP:NC is the applicable policy here, and the only criterion that something like Batman (1989 film series) 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. Betty Logan (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      WP:OR 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 naming criteria. Whatever the article title, the series non-title shouldn’t be italicized.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2015 (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 MOS:TITLE#Neither is less misleading. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2015 (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. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 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 WP:OR 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) instruction creep.—174.141.182.82 (talk) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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 Batman (1989 film series), 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. Wikipedia 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose both suggestions. Can't say it any better than Betty Logan has already done. Onel5969 (talk) 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 MOS:TITLE) for italics in this sort of descriptive term. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    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 XXXX (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 Batman (1989 film series) 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    So… unless someone can explain how the above is incorrect/fallacious, I’m just gonna go ahead and change “should be Series name (film series) or Series subject (film series) to “should be Series name (film series) to bring it more in line with both policy and actual practice. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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 WP:DEADHORSE 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. Betty Logan (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can poke holes in that argument of mine, I will happily drop the stick. 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.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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. Betty Logan (talk) 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 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 COMMONNAME, 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?) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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 WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. 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. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Review requested at WP:AN#Review request for non-admin closure at WT:NCF. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Closure review closed as endorsed. -- Orduin Discuss 22:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Is there any article on an unnamed film series?[edit]

Simple, direct question. Can anyone name a Wikipedia article about an unnamed film series? (I keep seeing Batman (1989 film series) claimed as an example, but that series is quite clearly namedBatman.”) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How is a “series subject” determined?[edit]

Since the IP wants an administrative closing here it is. This was already discussed above, no point in re-opening it so soon. Chillum 21:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


More IP trolling on the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since “Series subject (film series)” remains in the § 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: WP:OFFICIALNAME or WP:COMMONNAME; 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. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate non-admin closure notwithstanding, the question stands: How does one determine a “series subject” title? I’m not asking for any kind of change to the guidance; I’m just asking for someone to please explain the process of following it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.