Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

Template:WPHP

Large Edit

I just made a large edit to the artice, removing several sections. The cast section was completely unnecessary, as it can be viewed in IMDB. The name alteration section pertains to the book primarily (because the movie follows the book). The music section is rather random, but if anyone feels the need to integrate it somewhere, here it is:

The film features a score composed by John Williams, the fourth collaboration between the composer and director Chris Columbus. The score re-established John Williams as the top film composer, and leader of the leitmotif style. The score features many themes, the main theme, or Hedwig's Theme, being featured at the beginning of every Harry Potter film so far.

Alex 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

regarding the final inconsistency, Harry did see Diggory die in the goblet of fire, so this isn't as big of a deal as the article makes it seem.

Yes, that was the whole point -- the reason Harry saw the thestrals is because he saw Cedric's death at the end of GoF, not because he saw Quirrell "die" in the first book. There is no inconsistency, you're correct on that point. ugen64 01:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

There will be an inconsistency if the explanation for seeing the Thestrals (sp?) remains true to the book. In the Book universe, one can see the Thestrals after they have witnessed and had time to understand a death. In the movie universe, it will be four years since Harry saw someone die, and never saw the Thestrals in the intervening time. MrItty 14:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fifth movie has been released, and Luna Lovegood explains about the Thestrals to Harry. She only says that, to see a Thestral, one must "see the death", or something like that. But I think, beyond that, that one must see someone you care about dying, which would explain why Harry sees the Thestrals after Cedric died, and not after Quirrell died, 'cause he didn't care about Quirrell. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Name inconsistencies

I understand the name problem with the US and I had two comments:

1. The IMDB page uses "Sorceror's Stone" in the title and the page heading, so the imdb template title should also reflect that.
2. Can we get a poster for the UK version to use in the infobox? It's a little confusing to see "Philosopher" in the infobox banner and "Sorceror" in the poster.

--DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I was able to find the UK poster, so I made these changes. I'm still not thrilled with the formatting of the page, as the three images are hard to place on the page without muddling everything up, so if you have any suggestions on better layouts, please be bold and implement them. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's Sorcerer, not Sorceror. Just saying, hehe. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quirrel

It says that in the film version Quirrel was "cremated" where Harry touched him, but I seem to remember him being turned to stone. Which is it?
Alex 18:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

If memory serves (I unfortunately don't have the DVD here to check), he turned to a statue of ash that then crumbled, similar to (SPOILER FOR INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE! SPOILER AHEAD!) what happened to two vampires in the Interview with the Vampire movie. So he looked like a stone statue at first, but he was actually turned to ash like a person who'd been cremated. --Icarus 02:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

quidditch scene

I seem to remember the scene where Lee Jordan, the announcer, and McGonagall fight over the mic being in the theatrical version, but it was absent from the DVD, even the deleted scenes. Did I just imagine this or did it really happen this way, I think I am right because my brother seemed to remember the same thing happening. Will 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

While I would have liked to have seen it, I'm sorry to see Lee's commentary is never biased in the movies and he and McGonagall do not argue. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 02:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist

• There have been some rumors of the Philosopher's Stone in Harry Potter is the same type as in the one in "FullMetal Alchemist" anime/manga, this is due to the fact that the versions of stone in both are exactly the same and can both grant large amounts of power.

What does that mean and why is it here? Was Fullmetal Alchemist inspired by Harry Potter? The philosopher's stone is a legend that long predates these works of fiction. --Mrwojo 05:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention a large amount of differences in the creation of one in FMA and such...involving the use of many human souls and such...But that's not here or there. >.> 72.72.253.41 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alchemy long predates either work of fiction and there is no reason for either to be connected. --Thaddius 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between European and North American versions

This is so I can clear something up on Wizard People, Dear Reader. Someone is claiming that the Canadian release of the film is different from the US version. It comes down to the name of the stone. We all know that the book was originally 'Philosopher's stone' but for some reason the US call it the 'Sorcerer's Stone'. This editor from the WP,DR page states that the Canadian version has scenes added to it where the characters say Philosopher's instead of Sorcerer's, thus changing the length of the film, thus making WP,DR out of sync with the film. Can someone confirm with me that, in the US release, the characters definitely call the stone the Sorcerer's Stone? --Thaddius 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In the US release, they say, always, Sorcerer's Stone, not Philosopher's. I think you are saying that, in the Canadian release, the movie was called Sorcerer's Stone but they say Philosopher's (which would be a hell of mistake). Can you explain yourself? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry, I am your father!

I think the HP1 movie' Harry<-->Voldi battle scene differs a lot from the HP1 book, but it is not mentioned in the article. The film scripts a quite Star Wars-like situation. "Let's become allies, hand over the stone and we can resurrect your beloved ones". This is more or less the same what what Palpatine says to Anakin after killing Mace Windu in SW:RoS. The HP1 book says nothing about resurrecting Harry's parents, why was this invented? JKR always emphasizies HP is not SW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.0.68.145 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

But the Philosopher's Stone can't do that. The Resurrection Stone, presented in the seventh book, can do that. I think Voldemort said that just for Harry to give him the Stone. But the creators of the movie "guessed" about the Resurrection Stone... interesting (but wouldn't have sense, since Voldemort doesn't know about the Deathly Hallows). --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese seiyū

Since there's nowhere else to put it...

Character	English voice actor	Japanese seiyū
Harry Potter	Daniel Radcliffe	Kenshō Ono
Ronald Weasley	Rupert Grint	Yūki Tokiwa
Hermoine Granger	Emma Watson	Yumi Sudō
Draco Malfoy	Tom Felton	Kyōsuke Saegusa
Neville Longbottom	Matthew Lewis	Kanbase Ueno
Oliver Wood	Sean Biggerstaff	Tokuyoshi Kawashima
Percy Weasley	Chris Rankin	Mamoru Miyano
Fred Weasley	James Phelps	Mitsuhiro Ozaki
George Weasley	Oliver Phelps	Mitsuhiro Ozaki
Albus Dumbledore	Richard Harris	Ichirō Nagai
Minerva McGonagle	Maggie Smith	Ikuko Tani
Rubeus Hagrid	Robbie Coltrane	Shirō Saitō
Severus Snape	Alan Rickman	Takaya Hashi
Filius Flitwick	Warwick Davis	Kinto Tamura
Quirinus Quirrell	Ian Hart	Etsuo Yokobori
Madam Hooch	Zoë Wanamaker	Kachiko Hino
Argus Filch	David Bradley	Takeshi Aono
Molly Weasley	Julie Walters	Teiyū Ichiryūsai
Vernon Dursley	Richard Griffiths	Naomi Kusumi
Petunia Dursley	Fiona Shaw	Ai Satō
Dudley Dursley	Harry Melling	Kōki Oshiashi
Nearly Headless Nick	John Cleese	Otaka Taka
Lord "He-Whom-We-Don't-Care-To-Name" Voldemort	Richard Bremmer	Masashi Ebara
Mister Ollivander	John Hurt	Katsuya Kobayashi
Sorting Hat	Leslie Phillips	Takkō Ishimori

Cat's Tuxedo 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Some of these references seem to be randomly assigned, having nothing to do with the sentences they are citing. Anyone know what happened? Skittle 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And almost exactly half of them are pages written by some Brian Linder. How has this happened? Skittle 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because they just are? Is there really any problem, what sentences do you exactly mean. And yes the references are written by Brian Linder... why is that a problem, IGN is a reliable source... Gran² 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if it was just because it was handy, or if there weren't other sources that said the same. It would probably be better to use something more definate where possible; for example, rather than speculation that filming might be taking place at London Zoo, and that it will probably be for the scene with the snake, if we could find something saying that filming of that scene took place at London Zoo. Skittle 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the different name?

The article doesn't explain WHY the name is different in the US? PseudoEdit ^(yak) _(track) 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well why should it? This is the film, the title was renamed for the book, so a reason should be included there. Gran² 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, sorry. I have found the explanation in that article. Cheers PseudoEdit ^(yak) _(track) 09:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was a bit rude, so don't mention it. Gran² 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion may garner some outrage, but maybe the title of the article should be changed to the American title. I am a Briton and not trying to be biased in any way here but it's just because it is an American film as it was produced by Warner Bros. based in Burbank, California. Reginmund 07:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet it is a half British film, based on a British book, written by a British author who served as an Executive producer. The whole cast was British, it was filmed it Britain, it was produced by a Briton. It was released it Britain first, under this title. The only American things about it are WBs, Columbus, Kloves and John Williams. It should remain in its current name. Gran² 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Half British? Could you please clarify that? J. K. Rowling did not executively produce the film[1]. The fact that the entire cast is British doesn't make a film British. In that case all films with polygenous cast members would be considered "joint productions" (i.e. Witness for the Prosecution, The Third Man, Night and the City) (these films were all so filmed in Britain). The fact that only half of the producers were British doesn't make the film British. It didn't make The Third Man British just because David O. Selznick was one of the producers. You are wrong about the release date also. It was released in the U.S. on 16 November[2] and in the U.K. on 05 December[3]. It is an American film. Reginmund 08:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a solely American film, those sources are wrong in both release date and Rowling. Anyway, it was decided a long time ago after much discussion that this page should use this name. If you want to re-open the discussion that go to the HP wikiproject. If there is a concensous to rename, it will be renamed, but only then. Gran² 08:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, they are wrong? Then can you get me some right sources please? And what makes you think that they are wrong? I don't even see a discussion about name change and there isn't an an archive page on the film. It is solely an American film if it is produced by an American company. The cast members do not make a difference in the film's nationality. Reginmund 09:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen, Reginmund! At least SOMEONE understands how Hollywood and movies work. This is an AMERICAN film that was BASED ON A BRITISH BOOK WITH A DIFFERENT NAME! That is a FACT! Don't like it? Too bad! I mean, this is seriously getting annoying. People, again, this is an AMERICAN film BASED ON A BRITISH book; therefore, the BOOK page should have its proper BRITISH name, and the MOVIE page should be titled with SORCERER'S STONE. It doesn't matter that the cast was British. PLENTY of American movies have a British cast -- it doesn't make it a British movie. Even IMDB has this under Sorcerer's Stone. Get over it. That's the name of the movie. You don't like it? Again, too bad. You people clearly have no understanding of film... 71.145.148.97 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the sentiment that this article has attracted, it might be necessary to request a move. However, I won't do this now, I have off-Wiki vocations. Reginmund 09:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My sources are in the article. Anyway, there is no point in argueing, you wil never convince me the page needs to be moved. As such I seriously urge you to discuss the matter at the Harry Potter Wikiproject. Talk it over with the main HP editors there, and if they argee with you, then the page can be moved. But only then, you need consensous from them first, or else you'll have a potential edit war on your hands, with people constantly move the page back and forth. Gran² 11:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you driving at? Your source is from a U.S.-based article which clearly states it was released their earlier than in the U.K.. You cannot immediately assume a source is wrong, especially when you haven't verified it it with a contradicting source. Are you up to that? You are no authority to decide whether or not this page is to be moved. It would not only depend on the Wikiproject editors on Harry Potter but anyone could vote on this subject and if they outnumber them, it wouldn't matter if they preferred it not be moved. They are not the final authority and neither are you. What urged you to assume that I was going to start an edit war? I never said that nor made any actions whatsoever to insinuate that. Take your belligerence somewhere else; I am only making a suggestion as to why this article should be moved. Don't misconstrue that. Reginmund 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said Reginmund, and kudos to the person who corrected the release dates. Since the film is named Sorcerer's Stone and listed as such in every source I have seen, it should be listed properly here or should be moved. ZouBEini 17:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say you were going to start an edit war? No I said without a consensous (in any form) being reached first, if anybody moved the page, the page would be moved back and forth on a regular basis by many users. Also did I ever say I was the final authority, did I ever say that I had any power over you or this article at all? No I just said that I did not think it should be moved. I just suggested that you ask the HP project members as they would know more about this page than I do, after they wre the ones who decided on this name. The release in the article were there when I started work on it, they are the ones listed at IMDb, and I beleive elsewhere.

To be honest, I've had enough of this matter, if the page gets moved after the vote then so be it. I really do not care anymore. I find it offensive I am actually being ridiculed for disagreeing with you. Anyway, I wish you all the luck in getting the page moved, and as such I will not particpant in the vote or this discussion anymore. I never meant to offend you, I neve actually said anything that could even be considered offensive, I was just trying to argue my view and have clearly failed and to be honest I have better things to do than this. So as said, good luck! Gran² 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But only then, you need consensous from them first, or else you'll have a potential edit war on your hands - Gran2

I don't think that any civilised Wikipedian would ever assume that a discussion was going to evoke an edit war.

Talk it over with the main HP editors there, and if they argee with you, then the page can be moved. - Gran2

It looks like you meant to say here that they are the only Wikipedians to consent to since you told me to take it to the HP editors.

You still haven't given me a source that says the film was released earlier in the U.K. after you said that mine was wrong. (Your page source doesn't contradict what I said, I states that HP was released on 16 November in the U.S.). If anyone moves the page, it should only be decided by a poll and not exclusively by the HP editors as you so wrongly stated. As for being "ridiculed", maybe you should expect something like that when you state that a reliable source is wrong without saying why, nor showing me another source. That, you might find, is quite offensive. Reginmund 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, you just cannot take "I don't want to discuss this any more" for an answer can you? Fine I have given you a source, IMDb list the UK date as being earlier. But I am inclined to agree with you actually, having looked it up more and more, it seems I was wrong. I made my earlier claim on incorrect infomation, its what's called a mistake. My sincerest apologese to you for deep offence I have caused you for you were wrong. I also said that the HP would be a got group to discuss it with, and that if they agree with you it could be moved. This was only because they were the people that named it in the first place, and as such the only people likely to disagree with you. If you convinced them you would probably have no opposition. And you still fail to understand my edit warring comment. It means that if you or anyone at all moves the page, without clear voted consensous to refer other users to, any number of IP adresses, new users and such and such, could come and say "it should be called this" and move it, and it would keep on going. Edit warring was probably the wrong term to use, but that is what I consider something like that to be. * did not accuse you of being part of it, it was merely advice for your future monitoring of the page. And once again, I was wrong, let's remember that key point shall we.

So I was wrong, you were right, and also I personally do not consider a Yahoo movie page to be that reliable. It essentially like IMDb only not user contributed, as press source is much better in my book.

Anyway, there you go, you win... In fact just discredit and ignore everything I have said in this whole discussion except for this comment. That will clear things up, everything I have in the old part of this discussion is pure Mundungus Fletcher and you have been right all along. Seriously, I'm sorry for any offence or misunderstanding and especially for my mistake. But I am only human after all arn't I? Again, my apologese. Gran² 19:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Making a claim on incorrect information is a mistake, but blatantly claiming that my source is wrong without assuming that it has some merit and then researching it is daft. I don't see a reason to bring to to the HP editors as that is what this page is for. You seemed to have misunderstood what I did when I made a comment that this page should be moved. I only suggested that this page should be moved and if I gained enough support to move it, I would request an official move. I never said that I would move it without consensus. Don't misconstrue that either. If someone else has their own formal opinion, I would like to hear it. If they give a good reason as to why it should be moved and there consensus to move it. However, if they move it without consensus, then that is an edit war. Just because someone makes a suggestion, doesn't mean it will evoke an edit war. To have a mindset like that means that you probably must have some negative history in that field. As for IMDb over Yahoo!, there is no reason to discredit either one as they both have the same accuracy rates as each other. Yahoo! is still a source. Reginmund 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it would seem (in my eyes anyway) that you don't want to actually reconcile this matter. As you have rejected ever advance I have made. I have apologised, I have conceded defeat, and I have admitted I was wrong, which I obviously was, as I have proved myself. I even said to discredit everything I said as I no longer hold the opinions I expressed. I know I've been right dick and I admit that, you have done nothing wrong. What more do you want? Can we please just drop this arguement now. Gran² 19:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All I am trying to say is that you shouldn't blow something off like a source. If I make a statement, and you disagree with it, there are easier ways to resolve something than denying it. I'm done for now. Reginmund 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. I have noted the request for more discussion time here, and feel free to continue discussing the ramifications of the title if you wish, but it is clear that no consensus to move the page will come out of this move request. Both titles are clearly valid, but only one is established, and stability is an important factor when considering a title change. For the record, I am American. Dekimasuよ! 08:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) → Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) — Since the film is an American production (produced by Warner Bros. based in Burbank, California), it should probably be moved to it's American title. —Reginmund 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Support - Per reasons given (I'm not trying to be biased, I am a Briton anyway) Reginmund 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons previously stated. Wiki is the only source I have found with this naming convention. ZouBEini 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• 'Comment As things stand, it is clear that the book and film articles are talking about the same 'thing', but as film or book versions. (I'm not voting, as I feel biased. However, Wiki is far from being the only place I've seen this film with 'Philosopher's' in the title. I rarely stray into areas where it is refered to otherwise.) Skittle 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The movie is known world-wide as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the only difference being in the U.S. The book it is based on is also best known by the same title. (Even Canada knows the movie, the DVDs, and everything else related to it as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per above, the film is known worldwide as Philosopher's Stone. This is not the American Wikipedia. Alientraveller 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since the film has two titles, it seems to me that it makes more sense that the title of the film should correlate with the title of the book. Full disclosure: I am an American. ●DanMS • Talk 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, this film was a British production funded by an American company and as such should retain the British title. It is the most well known title. Woodym555 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, book and film is known worldwide as Philosopher's Stone. All of the other Harry Potter articles (books, characters, magic etc) are written in BrE due to the fact that the books and author are British and were originally published in the UK; surely the films also fall under the same HP sphere. Using the production house as justification to circumvent this seems like a stretch. Daggoth | Talk 03:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - It is a FACT that this is an AMERICAN MOVIE called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in AMERICA based on a BRITISH BOOK called HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. Period. 71.145.148.97 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").
• Strong oppose film name should follow book article title, and I Daggoth's argument. PageantUpdater 08:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The majority of the cast is British, the film is set in Britain etc etc. Number 57 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- No source given this is an American film. Matthew 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - regardless of the American/British question, the naming conventions state that it should be called its most common English-language title. That is unquestionably Philosopher, as it was released as such to everywhere outside of the US as that. (I too am an American.) Girolamo Savonarola 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Happy Potter is British, and arguable all Potter pages should use the British not American version. Otherwise, if the US does have a claim over this page, it is not clear cut, so we should go back to the original versions. This page has been at "Philosopher's Stone" since its earliest days. -- Beardo 05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• oppose. thought this was decided long ago. We have elected to follow british variant spelling, including title, on the hp articles. In this particular case even Rowling is now on record as regretting that she permitted the US title to be changed. Since we are arguing about how the film was made, Rowling insisted that the actors be british and it was made in the UK. Sandpiper 09:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - British writer, British Cast, story set in Britian, filmed in Britain, etc. Should definitely retain the original, British, title for both the film and the book. - fchd 19:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This has been discussed zillions of times before, this being the most recent time. See WP:ENGVAR. This has strong national ties to Britain and retains the existing variety. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Most common English-language title is Philosopher's Stone. SuperCoolAl 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; it was an Anglo-American production, and should retain the original title, derived from the title of the original edition of the book. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; don't beleive i need to state any reasons. Philbuck222 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The film may have been funded by Warners, and directed by an American, but many companies across the world fund different films. George Lucas and Francis Coppola funded a Kurosawa film, but it isn't American. The Lord of the Rings was made in New Zealand (written, shot, edited, etc), and was only funded by an American studio. The Harry Potter films, likewise, are made in Britain. Alientraveller 19:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this suggested move is in opposition to consensus clearly made years ago on the naming of the book and film, so the America-biased editor may be considered disruptive. Alientraveller 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Disruptive? That is wrong (I don't speculate, unlike you). Just because I suggested a move, doesn't mean that I am disruptive. I had also previously stated that I am not American biased as I feel this article should be renamed in light of the country that made it. I am a Briton by the way. There is no policy against suggesting a move request again. Don't make up your own rules. The Lord of the Rings was only filmed in New Zealand but was produced by New Line in New York. "George Lucas" and "Francis Coppola" are not studios by the way. They may have funded it but it was probably produced in the studio of that country. The "Harry Potter" films may have been shot in the U.K. but are made by an American studio. Just because a film was released with a certain title around the world, doesn't mean that it is it's original title. The film was produced by an American studio and is therefore American. Do your research next time before you make false accusations again. Reginmund 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not find Reginmund’s move request to be disruptive. Also please note that although Reginmund would like to have the article renamed, he has twice reverted efforts by a vandal to redirect the article to ...Philosopher’s Stone. ●DanMS • Talk 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - while I certainly don't support the proposal, there is no harm done in discussing it. Let's keep this focused on the title, not the editor. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the article is named already as Philosopher's Stone, this indicates consensus with book and film ages ago. Secondly, it is a British film, funded by an American studio, but beyond that it is primarily British. Would you class the third film as Mexican because of its director? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alientraveller (talk • contribs) 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be funny, since Sony is a Japanese corporation...does that make Spider-Man a japanese film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, what was the title of the film in other countries?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought wiki articles were written for the benefit of the reader. I didn't expect such passionate sentiments of ownership, sarcasm, and what appears to be border-line name calling simply because a proposal was made. I am American and own a film entitled, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", otherwise I would not have bothered to vote. When the reader searches for HPSS, "HP and the Philosopher's Stone" is listed instead. I understand the logic used when the film was named thusly in the US, but readers new to HP would be confused until they opened and read the HPPS article (for which they were not looking). Surely there is a more intuitive way for them to find the page being sought. ZouBEini 22:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem, but I don't see how the suggested move solves it. I am an Australian and own a film entitled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". If the the suggested move is implemented, I would then be shown a page called "Sorcerer's Stone" instead, which I am not looking for. Surely this would be just as confusing? Shifting the problem to another part of the world doesn't seem like a satisfactory solution. Daggoth | Talk 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the article is named already as Philosopher's Stone, this indicates consensus with book and film ages ago. Secondly, it is a British film, funded by an American studio, but beyond that it is primarily British. Would you class the third film as Mexican because of its director? - Alientraveller

We all have the right to consensus here. It is not a British film just because it was made from a British novel. That doesn't make The Picture of Dorian Gray a British film, it is American. Secondly, you have no idea what you are voting on. I have made it clear several times that a film's nationality is based on the nationality of the studio that produced it, not the nationality of the director. The African Queen is a British film that just happens to be directed by an American.

That would be funny, since Sony is a Japanese corporation...does that make Spider-Man a japanese film? -Bignole

Do your research. It was distributed by Sony but produced by Columbia. So far, nobody that opposes this move has given me a reason as to why this film is "British". Don't call me biased again because I am British too. Reginmund 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who do you think owns Columbia?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has given you a reason? No one seems to have answered my initial question. "What is the film called in other countries?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the titles under other languages. If you are referring to the Anglosphere, it was released as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the U.S., Canada, and The Bahamas. It was released as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the U.K., Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Regardless, this isn't about how it is better known, it shouldn't be. It is about what studio that produced the film. I still have no reason as to why it should be kept. As for Columbia, it is owned by Sony but Columbia is based and operated in the United States. Sheesh! Can you do some research before you make another half-assed rebuttal? And don't post it between what I write. I don't want to have to go on a safari in between the lines. Reginmund 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's both. There really isn't one determining factor, as Heyday Films always produced the film, and they are British. Do you know how much each company put into the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One small point but the film was NOT called Sorrcerer's Stone in Canada. As Evidence here is the webpage for the Ontario film review board that does lists the move as HARRY POTTER & THE PHILOSOPHER STONE and does not use the other title. [[4]] --67.68.153.32 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Errrrm... It doesn't list it at all. It doesn't search. Reginmund 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... [5] Gran² 06:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not listed there. Reginmund 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then search for it... Type in Harry Potter and then click submit. Its the fourth item listed. Gran² 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried searching and it doesn't work. That's beside the point though, we are determining what country that this film was made. Reginmund 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also Amazon.ca's DVD listing - the film was never released in Canada as "Sorcerer's". --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Errrrrrm... Looks like it had two releases then: [6] Reginmund 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of four production companies that endorsed the film, two (including WB and Heyday) were American and two were British[7]. Of the four, WB had the honour to distribute it. The other studios assisted in the local production (since it was set in the U.K.). Reginmund 04:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, this shouldn't even be a debate; it is a FACT that this is an AMERICAN MOVIE called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in AMERICA that is based on a BRITISH BOOK called HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. Period; therefore, the movie article should carry THE SORCERER'S STONE title and the book article should carry THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE title. It's so simple... 71.145.148.97 07:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

That's telling it... Reginmund 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what makes it American? By who produced it? Well, we know the UK helped produce it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was filmed in the U.K. but produced in the U.S.[8]. Reginmund 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked HeyDay wasn't located here. It was produced in both locations. But still, not seeing where that makes it American. I'm curious as to where the guideline is that says this would be a US film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Onw comment that I want to make- Who's also to say what poster from the movie should we use on the page? Should we use the UK/England poster or the American one? Is there a policy that could help me?  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think having a clear understanding of which country we plan to claim as owner of a film is probably a good bet to determine which poster to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Check that Yahoo! link. It says clearly at the bottom that the film is a U.S. production. Reginmund 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm at work so I can't view it. Secondly, who told Yahoo who gets the head title? Did they make that assumption by themselves. Has anyone checked to see if HeyDay claims ownership of Harry? But again, not seeing any guideline that says ownership of films is based solely on who produces the film, since more than one company produced this film (and most films for that matter are generally produced by multiple sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're at work then why are you editing (it would actually take less time to check the link then to type). Yahoo! is a film source, just like any other. The main contributor to the production of the film was WB. It says there if you just look. Don't respond to this again unless you look because I know that it would take much less time than to respond. Reginmund 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had a rule against when you can edit. Interesting notion. Demanding things of me at that, how uncouthe. Again, you never answered my question. Where is the guideline that dictates who gets ownership of a film when multiple cultures produce it. Yahoo is about as usable as IMDb. The question that needs to be asked is, who owns the film rights. This is something not determined by who is producing the film, as those companies get shares and the company that actually owns the film rights might not necessarily be the one that forks over the majority of the money (like wise, they might not be getting the biggest share either). Does Warner Brothers own the sole film rights, or does Rowlings? Make no mistake, the James Bond films are British films. No matter if Sony or MGM puts in more money to produce them, the Broccoli's own the film rights to that franchise and help to produce it under EON pictures. The real question is, "who owns the film rights"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I didn't say that Wikipedia did. It seems daft that you are saying that it is too much of an inconvenience to read that link (which would take mcuh less time) since you are working than to write another filibuster. There is no guideline to decide the rule of what country should be considered the film's primary producer but resbonsibly, we would base it off of the main contributor and/or cite sources from other such as IMDb or Yahoo! The peron that sells the film rights is not responsible for making the film. Nobody gives credit to their bank for opening their business. Now since we know that Warner Bros. contributed more significantly to the production of Harry Potter and we already have a cited source that says that Harry Potter is an American film, now all you need to do is click that link. Are you ready to take that step? to read the bottom of the page for ten seconds? Or are you too busy working or writing another filibuster for ten minutes? As for Bond, I never said that it was an American production as its primary production company is EON. Reginmund 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was saying that I cannot view the link at work, not that I wouldn't not view the link at work (i.e. I cannot view it because I have filters on my work computer). But I love the snive attitude you have developed. I viewed the link when I was home for lunch. It says Produced in USA, like you said, but what does that mean? Where did they get their information. Are they just assuming it's WB's film because they show up more times in the producing and distributing? Who owns the film rights has nothing to do with how contributes more. If a Japanese production company owns the rights to a film, but they cannot afford to make it a big budget movie and they contact 20th Century Fox to help back them, that does not make it 20th Century Fox's movie. They would probably get a larger portion of the profits for supplying a larger portion of the budget, but the film still belongs to the Japanese company. Show a citation that says Warner Brothers owns the film rights. We don't know how much WB contributed. Do you have a budget sheet in front of you, or are you just going by Yahoo Movies again? I'm sorry, but I have no idea where Yahoo got their information. Did they talk to WB? Do we know HeyDay doesn't have the film rights? As of right now, you have not convinced me of anything, and according to the survey (which I haven't even taken part of yet, hence why we are having this conversation) you haven't been able to convince the vast majority of editors. You need to show who actually owns the film rights to these books. You show me that and I'll vote whichever way it falls. It's as simple as that. Yahoo Movies saying "produced in USA" does not say to me that WB controls the film rights. It says to me that Warner Brothers is putting more money in, but again that has nothing to do with who controls the film in the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If I give you a source, don't respond as if you haven't seen it and use the excuse that you're at work. What's to respond to then? It doesn't mean that WB has the rights but they produced the film. Therefore it is American. J. K. Rowling didn't make the film just because she owns the film rights. I never said that WB owns the films rights. I never even said that the film should be determined by who owns the rights.

Most other film sites only credit WB as the studio. This shows that the other studios had minor contribution to the film[9]. (Don't bother responding if you're still at work) I don't see why you would question the facts provided by Yahoo!. It is as much a source as any other. Just because you don't know where they received their information, doesn't mean that it isn't verifiable. Do you question the BBC? And just because I haven't convinced the vast amjority of editors, doesn't mean I'm going to quit what I am trying to say. some are saying things that I have already gone over. they're probably not even reading the comments. Whether or not I convince you seems to be due to your defiance to accept a reliable source. Yahoo! won't post some irrelevant "factoid" for no particular reason. Save your suspicions for when someone gives you a link to a message board.

Reginmund 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First, enhance your calm. Your attitude is really starting to annoy me. Don't being to presume anything about me, or how I will respond. I clarified what I meant when I said I couldn't view it at work. Pardon me for having a job (though not a busy job, it's still a job). I don't particularly care for your attitude, as it is seriously bordering on incivility. Now, to the point. All you have shown me is that Warner Brothers is the biggest studio backing the film. I get that. I got that from Yahoo. I got that from IMDb, and I get that from BOM.com. Show me where it says that we determine who owns a film by who puts more money into it, and not by who owns the film rights. It's very simple. If WB owns the films rights, great, I'll be happy to support a name change. If some small British company owns the film rights, and Warner Brothers just promised to financially back the film in exchange for a large portion of the profits, then I won't. Simple as that. P.S., if you continue to be incivil toward me for no reason, I will report it. I have done nothing to provoke this attitude, as you jumped on me from the moment I made a silly joke about Spider-Man being a Japanese film. It's called facetious, I wasn't being serious when I suggested it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Attitude? Somehow, I don't think that it is civil to disregard the opinions of another because you have the ambition to reinforce another fillibuster and you cannot regard the opinions since your office has filtered the website. Then it seems more appropriate to have patience until you can access an unfiltered connection instead of ignoring significant evidence of a point that I have given you and move the debate off the beaten path. Now to what we're supposed to be discussing... I'm hearing from you that the owner of the film's rights is supposed to be the factor in determining the film's nationality. This supposedly proves something that you were joking about. In this case, since Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man[10], the film would be considered Japanese. However, if you consider the nationality of the film to be within the studio that produced it (Columbia), Spider-Man's nationality is American. Of course, we all know that Spider-Man is American. Disagree with me if you wish. Now, if you were to say that Harry Potter is a British film because the owner of the film rights are British, then you would have to consider Spider-Man a Japanese film. However, Harry Potter was produced by Warner Bros., this makes it American. If you still say that a film's nationality is determined by the nationality of the rights holer and not the studio of production, then Spider-Man is Japanese and maybe you should propose that the infobox's facts be changed. It's your finest hour... choose a determining factor... Is Spider-Man American or Japanese? (Jeapordy! music plays)... by the way, your incivility complaint seems to have been fueled by your insufficient inability to come up with a better answer to everything I have said so far. Ridiculing me about my point gives me a reason to do the same for you. Otherwise, I don't see the reason for these excuses to veer away from the argument. Reginmund 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't incivil to you, but I can cite plenty of times you were to me to an Admin if you like. Regardless, I know when I joke, and I wasn't being serious when I said Spider-Man was Japanese. What I said was that I considered it, I in no way implied that Wikipedia considered anything of the sort. You provide Yahoo Movies that said that Warner Produced the film, I get that. You provided no information that says who owns the film rights, or what guideline stipulates the title of the film. On the other hand, Girolamo did provide you with a guideline, just no link to one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) mentions how to determine the title of a film if it is different for other countries. That is to determine the name most used in primarily english speaking countries. I think I actually asked that question first when I came to this discussion, though I didn't think about the naming convention guidelines when I did it. SO it seems to me that the only way you'll get this page renamed is if you can prove that "Sorceror's Stone" is the version used the most in primarily english speaking countries. Beyond that, it seems to me like this page isn't changing names (at least not according to the survey, so you can get an attitude with me all you like, claim I'm not answering your questions, or that I'm comig up with excuses, but it won't make a difference). I'm going to bed now, as it's 1am and I have work at 8am. Just so you cannot infere something completely different, that means I will be asleep and anything you say I won't read till tomorrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Throwing this in [11], a previous discussion about UK vs USA for the films, may be of some use for this. Gran² 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Touché, I can do the same for you & cite myself. I had already spent half of my fillibuster explaining to you why the film should not be based on the rights holder and instead the studio that produced it. Well I guess I will have to repeat myself again. I'm hearing from you that the owner of the film's rights is supposed to be the factor in determining the film's nationality. In this case, since Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man[12], the film would be considered Japanese. However, if you consider the nationality of the film to be within the studio that produced it (Columbia), Spider-Man's nationality is American. Of course, we all know that Spider-Man is American. Now, if you were to say that Harry Potter is a British film because the owner of the film rights are British, then you would have to consider Spider-Man a Japanese film. However, Harry Potter was produced by Warner Bros., this makes it American, therefore, Spider-Man would be considered American (which it is). If you still say that a film's nationality is determined by the nationality of the rights holder and not the studio of production, then Spider-Man is Japanese and maybe you should propose that the infobox's facts be changed. Now, you say that the naming conventions should be based on the most known title to English speakers, but what you didn't mention is that this is the secondary tool in deciding the title. However, it seems that WB does actually own the film rights as it says at the top of the page... funny that we didn't notice that before. The primary tool is considering the title of the film's release as described here:

Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the native title instead, and give the English title(s) afterward. (Taken from the guideline of film titles)

Now I think it is unorthodox to honour the primary usage over the production company's country's usage, but if you insist... I have calculated the amount of American English speakers as opposed to the other countries in the Anglosphere (exluding those, of course that do not use English as the primary language as instructed by the naming conventions page). The total amount of people living in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada,, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Guyana, and Belize is 260,698,468. The total amount of Americans is 302,128,000. That's approximately 40 million more Americans that know this film as "Sorcerer's Stone". Before mulling, this over, try contemplating to stop complaining about my "attitude" because now it just seems that you're trying to get off of the subject.Reginmund 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First, let me reiterate what I already told you. To me, that would be what would determine a film's proper name. Again, I never once claimed that Wikipedia uses that system of logic. Harry Potter was produced by more than just Warner Brothers. First, when it says more commonly known, it isn't "how many people reside in given country", as not even the US census is that accurate. It's an estimation. What is being counted is how many countries themselves call it "Sorceror's Stone". Regardless, discussing this is irrelevant. I don't even need to cast an opinion, and frankly, Ckatz won my opinion because they did something you never once did, and that was provided a guideline for how to name the article. So, I'll bid you adou. The name change is clearly not going to happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Estimation? So they counted forty million people accidently? No... they didn't. That is the worst excuse you have given me so far. It is the quantity of the amount of people that know it as "Sorcerer's Stone" and not the amount of countries. That doesn't make it better known. You said that it is better known as "Philosopher's Stone" (which I think is irrelevant). 40 million more people know it as "Sorcerer's Stone". You said that the ststus is determined by who owns the rights (which I also disagree to). It turns out that our article said at the top that WB owned the rights all along. However, I said that the film should be determined by the primary studio of production (which I have proven to you on several occasions is WB). As you have so blatantly lied about me not providing a guideline which I did since I copied this one from my previous fillibuster... Now for the grand finale:

Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the native title instead, and give the English title(s) afterward. Taken from the guidelines (again)

You support Ckatz in giving me the guidelines, eh? Well this proves to show two things that I have been trying to say here. As I have had to repeat for the third time, forty million people more know this film as Sorcerer's Stone and that's not even the primary obstacle. It says that the primary obstacle is to use the native title instead (i.e. the country of production... i.e. U.S. (WB)). it seems that every rebuttal you have, has been shambled and now the final question is... Does consensus rule over guidelines? Reginmund 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick clarification, US census is an estimation. There are not exactly 302,128,000 people in the US. It's estimated based on the figures they receive when they run a census. That is irrelevant as you asked a question: "Does consensus rule over guidelines?". The answer is yes. Why? Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Auf Wiedersehen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that 302,128,000 is a legitimate number. Don't say that I did because I didn't. The Census Bureau estimated that there are 302,128,000. That means that there is an estimate of 40 million more people that know this film as "Sorcerer's Stone". Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't say anything about how official policy is superior to consensus but it doesn't say that it isn't. In that case, I will discuss this with some admins as to whether or not it is. Since keeping this page violates at least three different policies which I have already proven to you, it may be moved for obvious reasons, but if consensus rules over policy (which I highly doubt), then so be it, the page would stay. So my "irrelevant" question has some merit here. It seems to me like you didn't even read the page that you gave me. Reginmund 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, anyone who ACTUALLY thinks that this movie isn't an American movie and SHOULDN'T be called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is just ignorant. Period. There are PLENTY of AMERICAN movies that have been made (i.e. shot and edited) OUTSIDE of America that feature a prominently British cast, but they are STILL CONSIDERED TO BE AMERICAN MOVIES SINCE THE COMPANY THAT PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED THEM IS AMERICAN! And there's a difference between the PRODUCTION of a movie and the DISTRIBUTION of it!

I mean, I cannot believe that this is even a debate. Again, it's a FACT that this is an AMERICAN MOVIE called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in AMERICA that is based on a BRITISH BOOK called HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE; therefore, the movie article should carry THE SORCERER'S STONE title and the book article should carry THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE title! IT’S THIS SIMPLE, PEOPLE! YOU NEED TO GET OVER YOUR OBNOXIOUS ANTI-AMERICA ATTITUDE!

Using everyone's (except Reginmund's) inane logic, had the British book, HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE been called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in EVERY OTHER country, you'd want the book article to use THE SORCERER'S STONE title JUST BECAUSE that's what the majority of English-speaking countries use? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! The title of an article should be the same as the title of the movie/book in the movie/book's ORIGINATING COUNTRY, NOT what the majority of OTHER countries call the movie/book; and in these cases, these are THE PHILOSOSPHER’S STONE for the book (Britain) and THE SORCERER’S STONE for the movie (America). Again, this is so simple! 71.145.148.97 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

Please do not call other editors "ignorant" because they disagree with your assertions. If, for whatever reason, you cannot remain civil, please do not contribute to this argument. Daggoth | Talk 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bignole thinks that the film is better known as "Philosopher's Stone" because it is known there in five countries despite the fact that it is actually known by 40 million more people as "Sorcerer's Stone". He/she hasn't even provided a guideline on determining that you count by the countries and not the people (which is quite daft). Reginmund 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Also, Reginmund, this movie was released in the U.S. on November 16, 2001 according to the IMDB, Yahoo!, and many other resourceful movie websites. I also know this is true because I live in the U.S. and saw it in November! Whoever put in the article that it was released here on December 5, 2001 was either extremely misinformed or did it on purpose. Regardless, this is pretty discreditable for Wikipedia and I'm quite surprised that no one has even brought this up yet. Could you change it please? 71.145.148.97 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

Comment: Move to close the discussion. Consensus is obvious - currently 15-3 in favour of retaining the current title. As well, the debate is degenerating rapidly as evidenced by the most recent comments from Reginmund and 71.145.148.97. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Regardless of whether or not this debate is valid, it's clear that the people above will not be moved no matter what the outcome is. Daggoth | Talk 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's actually 15-3. I have already made several pooints to Bignole as to why this film should have its name changed and its really coming down to whether or not consensus is superior to policy. That's what I'm finding out now. Give it more time. Reginmund 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with giving it more time. While it is true that sentiment seems to be largely against the move, this issue is hotly debated and I think it would be unfair to close it early. ●DanMS • Talk 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

U.S. Release Date

This movie was actually released in the U.S. on November 16, 2001 according to the IMDB, Yahoo!, and many other resourceful movie websites; I also know this is true because I live in the U.S. and saw it in November! Whoever put in the article that it was released here on December 5, 2001 was either extremely misinformed or did it on purpose. Regardless, this is a pretty discreditable and embarassing error for Wikipedia and I'm quite surprised that no one has changed or even brought this up yet, so I did. 71.145.148.97 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

GA fail

This article is a good start, but important sections are missing and several sections are simply lists. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• The article needs a "Themes" section. Material for this section can be found in the work of film scholars and film reviewers.
• The article needs a "Cinematic style" section that discusses the artistry of the film: editing, cinematography, etc. Currently, only the soundtrack is discussed.
• The lead is not a standalone summary of the article (see WP:LEAD for hints on writing leads).
• The article needs to be copy edited. The major problems are:

• Repetitive diction (as in "ordinary" or "immortal" in the "Plot Summary").
• Wordiness (as in "became an instant fan ever since" in the "Development" section).
• Awkward syntax (as in Canterbury Cathedral was touted as a possible location for Hogwarts, only for Warner Bros. offer being rejected because of concern over the film's "pagan" theme.)

• Is it possible to move the "Cast and characters" section lower in the article? It dominates the first part of the article and gives very little information for its size.
• The "Casting" subsection under "Production" is a prose list. If the only information in the sentence is that so-and-so was cast as a particular character, it doesn't need to be there - the "Cast" list is already there. Only include interesting information beyond that in the "Casting" section.
• "Filming" is also a prose list. List only the interesting and important locations, not every single one.
• "Differences between the film and the book" is also a prose list. This would probably work better as a list or table, actually.
• "Marketing" is another prose list. Try to make coherent paragraphs that focus on particular topics.
• The "Rotten Tomatoes" rating should be taken out. That is a very vague number and not considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia.
• The "Critical reception" section needs to be expanded. I would assume that every major movie critic around the world commented on this film. The current selection seems US-centric and thin. Also, more world-wide numbers on the film would be helpful; it was not only seen in the US. Awadewit | talk 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

Note that the BFI retain the U.S. title[13]. (Due to the film's nationality) Reginmund 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, your being persistent. But to be honest I really don't care about what this article is called anymore, if you can get a consensous or something like that, fo a move to SS, then I really do not mind. Gran² 06:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This was also to indicate that the BFI, probably the most persistent film institute in history, and not to mention British, restores the original working title of a film produced by a company based in Burbank, California. If I had added this fact in before the move, then maybe, it would have worked. Reginmund 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The film was released first in the US, but that doesn't make the film an US film. The whole cast is British, the author is British, and the book is British. The director may be from US, but everything else, even the location where the film is supposed to be, is British. So I would say that this is a British movie. The subsequent films have proven to be more British than American.

Also, there is an old legend about the Philosopher's Stone, a legend which made Rowling write this book. I think the US producers should have left the original title as it was for the US. That goes for the film, too.

This article is ok, it should be called Philosopher's, not Sorcerer's, because the real legend is about the Philosopher's stone, not a Sorcerer's Stone. A Sorcerer's Stone, in old legends, is... nothing. The movie, and the book, say about a Philosopher's Stone, which is supposed to be the same stone of those old legends. See about Nicolas Flamel, which is mentioned in the book, film, and those legends. Ah, by the way, he was a real person. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the book first came out in the UK, and was called Philosopher's, the movie should be named the same. Anakinjmt 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The nationality of the cast, the nationality of the book it is based on, or the director is irrelevant. In determining the nationality of the film, the company of production is the most reasonable choice. Since it was produced in Burbank, it makes it American. Reginmund (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I am passing this article keeping in mind that major problems of the last review have been cleared.

• Missing sections: Effects, Music etc. are more than enough. There is no need of Cinematic Style as this is not an FA nom.
• Prose Lists: All is fine.
• Language: OK right now.Vikrant Phadkay 14:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran² 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I could be rong, but insn't Rawlings book about Sourcers, not Philosiphers? -Abc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.147.4 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Gran² 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Different running times

Philosopher's Stone runs for 147 (it says on the DVD) not 152. I think 152 is for Sorcerer's Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArryStreet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be strange, since "Philosopher's" is a longer word than "Sorcerer's". WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:30, 13 November 2007 (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.

---

Closed debate - it's had a month, consensus is very clear that the article should not be moved, so this debate can safely be closed. Neıl ☎ 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Title of this article

{{RFCmedia }}

Since this film is an American production, entitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the article should reflect this title. It is based on a book entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but this is the name of the novel, and not the original name of the film. In addition, the film was indeed released in the United States prior to being released in the United Kingdom, which is understandable considering that it is an American film. I suggest that this article be moved to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and that the book's article be left as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are legitimate arguments for changing it to sorceror's stone. However, I believe that they are not very salient, and that the need to be consistent with the correctly titled book article is more important. I (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a joint UK/US production. Warner Bros. were just the distributor and funder, Heyday Films mainly produced it, with David Heyman (who's British) as the producer. Anyway, some may argue that the Warner Bros. factor is enough for it to be renamed, but I'm not convinced... Also what's your source for it being released in America first? As far as I knew, it was released in the US and UK on the same day... And please be aware that a renaming was proposed earlier this year, and was pretty resoundingly defeated. Gran² 07:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, not again. British author, British setting, British cast. Same conclusion as the numerous other times this has come up - Keep at the same title. - fchd (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Only in America is it known as Sorcerer's Stone. This is the English encyclopedia. And yes, it is primarily a British film: American funding doesn't mean films like Chariots of Fire or Gandhi were American. Ditto with some of Kurosawa's later efforts which were funded by Coppola and Lucas. Alientraveller (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is based on the British book, and we must remember that A: the book and movie were only called Sorcerer's Stone in America and B: Americans are not the only English fans. The article should remain where it is. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Being it a co-production, the majority of the production occurred in the United States. Three companies were involved in production: Warner Bros., 1492 Pictures, and Heyday Films. Of these three, two were American and the majority contributor (WB) is American. Of these companies, Warner Bros. was the only studio involved in production. Warner Bros. also owns the film rights and has the official web site at their domain. Let alone that Warner Bros. was the majority contributor to the production, distribution and filming, The rest of only the production occurred between 1492 and Heyday. Just because the film is based on a book authored by a Briton doesn't make it British. Anna Karenina happens to be based on a Russian novel but it is a British film. The Third Man happens to be in an Austrian setting but it is a British film. The Third Man also features primarily American actors but it is still a British film. Move it for the sake of the film's nationality. That is how it should be. Reginmund (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying it's a British film though, we're saying it's definitively not an American film. And as said above, contributing the most money does not make Ghandi or Chariots of Fire, American. Keep, I didn't even know it was called "sorcerer's stone" in the USA, and no this does not justify that the articles name should be changed accordingly, it means that an internationally released film was known by a different name in just 1 country. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Alientraveller has stated that it is a British film. From the provided evidence, it is definitely an American film. Yet, I never said that whoever contributed the most money shares the nationality of the film. Whichever studio it was produced in (Warner Bros.), it shares its nationality with. Regardless of how many other countries it is known as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, what determines its nationality and original title is how it was titled by the studio that produced it. That would be Warner Bros. based in Burbank, California. For these reasons and those provided in my earlier post, move the article. Reginmund (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Except the movie is based on the book CALLED Philosopher's Stone. The movie is called Philosopher's Stone. Only US and Canada got Sorcerer's Stone, and while the population in both countries is huge, everywhere else in the world is huger, and everywhere else in the world the English version is called Philosopher's Stone. I'm not just talking about the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Germany, France, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Norway, Sweden, all other places in the world where the English version is available it is called Philosopher's Stone. 2 countries vs. over 30 countries easily, with odds being strong of much more than 30. Considering it was a joint US/UK production, with a majority of the crew being British, and all of the cast being from the UK and Ireland, it is proper to keep it at the original name. Keep. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this carries much weight, but the film was nominated for the BAFTA Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film. Which the film would not have been nominated for unless it was a joint US/UK production. Gran² 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another note - it was "Philosopher's Stone" in Canada, as with the books. (Anakinjmt, if you don't mind, could you please remove Canada from the above note for clarity?) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a book's original name was changed for a film in a different country, doesn't mean that the film should be represented by the book's name. Take Murder, My Sweet for example. It is based on a book called Farewell, My Lovely (and in the UK, the original title is restored). Now Murder, My Sweet is an American film, but since the book has a different title and that title is used in another country, should that suggest that we should change the name of the film's article based on how the book was titled or how the film was titled in the country of its production? In this case, that would be the film. The book has its own article for its own title. Also, we don't include countries that don't have English as an official language such as Norway. Or would you suggest changing the article's name to Harry Potter og De vises stein? But that's beside the point. It is also beside the point that there are 40 million more Anglophones that know this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The way of determining the film's title is how it was released in the country of its production, regardless of what the name of the book is. Nor is the nationality of the cast a determining factor. The main characters in The Third Man were Americans, yet the film is a British production. Since the film is a co-production indeed, it may be eligible for any award based on the nationality of one of the three film companies as best [insert demonym here] film. But the determining factor is where the majority of the production occurred... and that would be with Warner Bros.. Reginmund (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The title 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is what could be considered the international (English) title of the film, my reasoning for this has nothing to do if it is a UK or American film but because it is the title used in all English speaking countries other than America, Australia and New Zealand are perfect examples of this. I suppose you argue that doesn't make 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' the international title but it certainly suggests that 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is only a localised title for the film and as such for simplicity sake I feel should take lower "preference". In short stick with 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' aka 'KEEP'. Sin Harvest (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I argue because this film is American, its title should be as it was released in the United States. WP:ENGVAR states that if an article has particular a more specific link to a particular country (in this case, the film is American), the dialect should be used of that country. Reginmund (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR states that if an article has a 'strong' national ties then it should be written in that particular variety of English, in my personal opinion who (nationality) produced/funded/directed/etc isn't really a strong tie as to what nationality a film is as there are so many people/companies involved in the making of a movie, also many of these companies are also multinational companies so it contestable if they are of a certain nationality. Also as Gran points out we have to keep consistency in the article so if this article is to take the title 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' the whole article must be adjusted to American English--Sin Harvest (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The film does have strong national ties to the country. In determining a film's nationality, you don't go by the cast's, you don't go by the director's, you don't go by the setting's, you don't go by the book's, you go by the studio's nationality, especially when Warner Bros. is the only studio involved in production. That is the traditional way of determining the nationality of a film in the film industry and it always has been. If indeed the article is moved, then that wouldn't prevent us from changing the spellings. Since I am the one who has participated the most in the discussion for the move, I would do it. Reginmund (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have said this before and I understand why your repeating it but unfortunately it doesn't change my opinion that the studio doesn't inherently have 'strong' ties to the film, also I still believe my argument above about 'Sorcerer's Stone' being a localised title (and thus should take lower preference) still holds merit. I'm not saying your wrong but for the record you have yet to change my opinion that ultimately I feel that we should 'keep' the article as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is how a film's nationality is determined. By the studio. If you mean localised title to refer to the book, there is a separate article on the book. The title is "localised" based on the country it is associated with based on the criterion determining that association. Reginmund (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Title of this article - Philosopher's vs Sorcerer's - (arbitrary break)

Because this whole debate has got so tiresome, I'm voting neutral, cos I couldn't really care less what it is called. In my view anyway, the article's name is one of the least important things about a page. But if this is moved, I'm not going to be the one who changes all of the spelling to American. Gran² 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is quite ridiculous. Whether or not this is an American production, it is based on a British book and our article for that book uses the British name. Therefore this page's name should use the British title. Keep asyndeton talk 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is based on a British book. The Picture of Dorian Gray is based on a British book but it is an American film. It goes in line with the American spellings and would go in line with an American release if the title were different. There is a separate article on the book which should undoubtedly keep its British title but this article is about the film and that subject is American. Therefore, this page's name should use the American title. Reginmund (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong national ties to America? What? The studio is NOT a strong national tie. What would be a national tie would be the setting of the book/film, the author of the original work (in this case, a British author), the cast is British, a huge majority of the film crew is British, it's about a British boarding school in Scotland, not to mention it has a British feel to it. Honestly, the book is located at Philosopher's Stone, and I see no reason why the movie should not be at Philosopher's Stone as well. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The studio is based in Burbank, California. Were talking in terms of determining the nationality of the film and when in doing so, one must use the studio to determine this. The cast of The Third Man is American but the film is not American. The crew of The Grudge is Japanese but the film is American. Night and the City is set in and it has a British "feel" to it which is totally irrelevant, yet it is American. A book that was adapted into a film is located at Farewell, My Lovely but the film is located at Murder, My Sweet. See, all of these traits are irrelevant when determining a film's nationality. In the film industry, a film's nationality is always determined by the studio that produced it. In this case, the film is American as it was produced by Warner Bros. in Burbank, California. Reginmund (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of the links you provided to films that were based on a book, how many of the books were released under two different titles? asyndeton talk 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Farewell, My Lovely was released under two different titles for the film adaptation. Reginmund (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Movie should be located where the book is located, because it's only in America that it's known as SS, and with the vast majority of the world knowing it as PS, I'm sticking with keep. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie should be located where the film is located? So would you suggest moving There Will Be Blood to Oil! (film)? Then again, the film is American so it should reflect the American title, shouldn't it? However, the vast majority of the world knows it as Sorcerer's Stone (which is also irrelevant). Yes, 40 million more Anglophones know it by the U.S. title and that isn't the criterion for moving the page. Reginmund (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) indicate that the most commonly used title should be used. Since the population of the United States alone is nearly three times that of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined, this fact alone constitutes the fact that the "Sorcerer's Stone" title is more commonly used, since it is used by approximately 200 million people more than those who use the "Philosopher's Stone". Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose to renaming the article. To do so would be contrary to the efforts to present Wikipedia as a truly international resource, rather than just an American one. The overwhelming consensus through numerous discussions has been to use Philosopher's Stone, and I think Regimund (et al) should accept that consensus rather than wasting time with repeated attempts at overturning it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international resource. However, when there is ambiguity in the title of a film, the name of the film as it is used in the country that produced it is the title that ought to be implemented. Indeed if there is consensus against the move, it is no excuse to make one's points. Reginmund (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The "country" didn't produce the film, a multi-national corporation did. I repeat my points from above - the original name of the book, the author, the setting, the cast - all British. This makes the British (and original, and worldwide) name the most appropriate name for the article. Overwhelming consensus seems to be of that view as well. - fchd (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yes the country did produce the film. It is a US production since the corporation is based in the US. I repeat my points from above. The original name of the book which Murder, My Sweet is based upon is Farewell, My Lovely. The author of Of Human Bondage is British but the film is American. The cast of The Third Man is American but the film is British. The setting of Night and the City is in Britain but the film is American. So this does not make the film British. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. This article is not about the book, the author, the setting, or the cast. All of those examples have articles of their own and when using a specific dialect of English there, it must be British English. However, this article is about the film, and yet I have to repeat myself again. In the film industry, a film's nationality is always determined by the studio that produced it. This makes Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) the most appropriate name and overwhelming evidence seems to be of that view as well. Reginmund (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The naming conventions state: Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers. There are nearly 200 million English readers who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and only about 100 million who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Therefore, there should be no argument: the title of the article at the present time direclty conflicts with Wikipedia policy, and should be redirected immediately to the correct title. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Retain UK spelling. The film is not a clearly American production: US studio, sure, but British actors. It goes both ways. The argument about more people recognizing the US title comes up perennially, but I've never accepted it (and I think the community tends to agree with me). Such an argument would lead to always using US spellings simply because there are so many of us Americans. This ain't gonna happen. We're an pan-Anglophone (is that a word? Well, it is now) encyclopedia and community.

Philosopher's Stone is the original title and is accepted in the country which is the origin of the film (realising that its origins lie in Jo's book). It should be used here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the film is an American production due to it being produced by WB. This is how the nationality of the film is determined, not by the nationality of the actors. It is irrelevant how many more people recognise the film by a certain title. The fundamental way of naming a film is by the country of its production. Incidentally, Sorcerer's Stone is actually the original title of the film. And incidentally, there have been films that have been released with different titles contrary to their books. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The production as a mechanism was British, i.e. British cast, British film studios, British locations, British crew. The only thing US about it was Warner Bros, and even then the producers were working from UK offices during the film production. --WebHamster 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The film studio was American. WB is American. Once again, the cast of The Third Man is American but the film is British, the location of Night and the City was Britain but the film is American, and the crew of The Grudge was Japanese but the film is American. Now before you digress again to how there are more people opposing the move, can you address the point I have just made? Or would you concur that Night and the City is British, The Third Man is American, and The Grudge is Japanese? Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the status quo that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) is the correct title for this article. So long as the correct redirects are in place, the arguments seem like a waste of our time. The film should have the same title as the book on which it was based. --John (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a minor issue, but if one answer is slightly preferable to another, that's what we should use. I don't buy at all that the film has anything resembling "strong ties" to America. Where WB is based is a quite minor issue in my view. The arguments of which name more people know it by might have merit, altho one could just as easily talk about which name more countries know it by. The current name is fine. Friday (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason that where WB is based is brought up is because the studio is the determining factor of the film's nationality. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that correct? There are only 300 million English Readers in the world, and 200 million are in the USA? Therefore between the British Isles, Australia, Canada, and countless former colonies elsewhere only constitute one-third of English Speaking folk? This seems a highly dubious claim. In any case, the Translated editions all use Philosopher's Stone, since it is a pretty universal concept; only the US editions were changed to Sorcerer's. Thus it would be more like 200 or 300 million potential readers in the USA who see "Sorcerer's" versus up to 6+ billion potentially worldwide who would see "Philosopher's" (or a translated version of the actual hypothetical artifact). --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up - I was looking over Amazon's lists yesterday and noticed the dominance of translations using "Philosopher's", but wasn't sure how to incorporate it here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep at Philosopher's Stone. Rhythm's claim looks and smells like whole cloth; I wager that there are far more than 300 million English readers in the world, especially when the US itself exceeds that number. I think that Rhythm's just pulling out big numbers to persuade those who wouldn't know any better. And ad for the RfM? Forum-shopping. I strongly suggest to Rhythm that he withdraw the RfM or else I will take action for what appears to be this blatant end-run around the consensus. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You say that there are far more English readers? Well there is a perfectly good article on the novel but this article isn't about the novel. It's about the film and I'll repeat myself. The determining factor in the nationality of the film is the country of its production. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the name of the article with Philosopher's Stone as per all the arguments already made. It's known as PS throughout the world except for the US (where a stupid book publisher decided to change it, and the movie makers followed suit for that audience). Sorceror's Stone redirects to it anyway; so it won't be difficult for people familiar with the US title to find it. Aleta (Sing) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of who's the jerk that changed the title. I also feel that it is silly too. But Wikipedia does not dictate what a name should be, only what it is. Nor is it an issue of the difficulty of finding the article. In determining the nationality of a film, the studio's nationality is used. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - UK writer, UK crew, UK cast, UK location, UK book, majority of cast paid in UK pounds. And for the assertion it was released in the US first, sorry that's royally wrong. The UK premiere was a full 10 days before the US one. To all intents and purposes any reasonable person will (and does) consider this to be a British film. --WebHamster 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the film was written by an American. The crew of The Grudge is Japanese but the film is American. The cast of The Thrid Man is American but the film is British (and I'm sure they were paid is US dollars, too). The location of Night and the City is Britain but the film is American. I repeat myself, these are not the determining factors of a film's nationality. The determining factor is the studio of the film's production. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The scriptwriter is America yes, but his is a derivative work of the British author whom I was referring to. Regrdless of what you would like things to be the general perception of the film is that it is British. The general consensus of this RfC is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the name as is. Consensus trumps guidelines always. --WebHamster 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And there is a perfectly good article on the book which uses British English as it is supposed to. Let me remind you once again that this article is about the film and not the book. Please explain how I "like" things to be in a certain general perception. I know that I did not make such a statement at all and I can only assume that you have fabricated it. Is there an instance throughout this discussion in which you are proven wrong, you do not digress to how many more people oppose the move just because you cannot accept the fact that you are wrong? Keep in mind that "consensus" is not synonymous with "voting" and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WebHamster above. Also, what's this ludicrous assertion that most of the world's English-speaking population live in the US? Does no-one speak English outside of the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand then? I beg to differ (and so does the rest of the world). The number of English-fluent people in countries where it was released as "Sorcerer's" is easily less than the number where it was released as the original title. It also may be worth closing the pointless RfM. BLACKKITE 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't close RfMs just because you don't like them. I'd like to point out that the amount of people that know the film by a certain title is irrelevant too. As I've said in all of my responses, the determining factor is the country of the film's production. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We also don't keep them going ad infinitum until nominators and supporters get what they want. This is already a clear case of WP:SNOW. --WebHamster 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We also don't build consensus by ignoring a point brought up several times (as it appears, many opposers haven't actually read it). And we certainly don't close them because there are more people against the move keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This already fails the snowball test so it isn't a case of the snowball clause at all. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet, I'll be bold and ignore that rule that doesn't even make sense and contradicts that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Reginmund (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What rule are you referring to? WP may not be a legitimate democracy but it is certainly consensus driven. Having just read WP:MOSFILM I can't find anything that relates to the main crux of your argument with regard to studio=nationality. Likewise I would like to bring your attention to what that article says at the top of the page. Pay special attention to the words "guideline" (i.e. not policy) and "occasional exception" and "common sense". As for your being bold, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you are confusing the term with "irritating", disruptive" and "flogging a dead horse". --WebHamster 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Films are judged by the studios that produced them in the film industry. And a more specific naming convention WP:NC(F) does not mention how to choose between an anglophone film released in different countries with a different title. So use common sense. What's the expertise on film... the film industry. How does the film industry determine the nationality of a film... the studio. And because the convention is a guideline, that doesn't mean that it is automatically discredited just because you don't like it. Now you bring up common sense, which I have just covered. Now common sense appears to be in my favour too since what makes the most sense is to go by the film industry's convention on determining the nationality of films. Those are the keywords; pay special attention to them. As for me being bold, it certainly serves as a support for common sense. But, I'm afraid that your riding of the idea that you can somehow discredit a guideline simply because you don't like it shows your disposition to flog a dead horse (and possibly not just in the metaphorical sense). Your digression from why I'm the topic at hand instead of the film's name is irritating at a climbing level. And your persistent analogies to support a claim that you are posting because of a defence in opposition to a page move that you think is inconsistent with the guidelines for reasons that you do not fully understand is certainly, by all means, utterly annoying and vehemently disruptive. Now would you like to attend to the subject matter or gripe about how the guidelines are against your opinion and blame me for it? Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above and per WP:MOS Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. ^Khukri 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the film is American, if it would follow WP:MOS, it would use the American title. I'm not sure what you're implying by how edit warring over styles is unacceptable, granted we already know. I would hope that doesn't mean that this discussion is an edit war. The MOS of the first major contributor is only relevant when the topic at hand has no specific affiliations with a certain country. But this one does. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well given that the RfC is a month old and there are 13 x keeps, 3 x change and 1 x neutral. What does it take for a consensus to be declared, or is it the intention of the nominator and supporters to just keep going until the snowball gains an asbestos coat and a sun tan? --WebHamster 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. One doesn't post their opinion without actually discussing it, in the manner or which, not digressing. You may leave out your analogies of talcum powder, glycerine, and whatever other products are manufactured by DuPont. It has even less relevance to the topic at hand. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • And after a survey 6 months ago that was 17 keep and 3 rename...I'd say there is clear consensus that this should stay as is. Metros (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per our guidelines on English/British variants. Let's look at the facts:

  This movie is based of the book

  The book is written by J.K. Rowling

  J.K. Rowling is british

• Since she is british, we use the british title for the book. Because the book uses the taht title, the movie should also. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about the book. This article is about the film. That is why the book is located at Philosopher's Stone. Let's look at the facts relevant to the film:

• A film's nationality is determined by the studio that produced it.
• The film was produced by Warner Bros..
• Warner Bros. is American.
• Thus, the film should use the American title. Reginmund (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting ridiculous now. Let me spell it out for you.

• The film is based on a "British Book", by a "British" writer, set in (you guessed it) "Britain".
• The film was produced in "Britain", filmed in "Britain", and released first in "Britian", with a purely "British" cast, a condition of the author who sold the rights to it (who is "British")
• A large number of films from all over the world are produced by american companies, this does not make them american

It is not the producing company of a film which determines its country, its is a whole number of factors, i.e. the ones listed above. At best, it could be called part US/part British. In which case the title would default to British. Please understand. Consensus is against you. There is only the two of you who have this viewpoint, and all your arguments have been discredited. Stop forum shopping, back away from the dead horse and accept that the article will stay where it is.--Jac16888 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, this is really getting ridiculous. Let me spell it out for you.

• Of Human Bondage is a British book by a British writer but the film is American.
• Night and the City is set in Britain but it is an American film.
• The determining criterion of a film's nationality is the company that produced it. That is always the determining factor of a film's nationality in the film industry. Just because Night and the City was set in Britain and had some British actors doesn't make it a "little" bit British. It doesn't make it British at all. In which case the title would default to American. The only studio involved in the production was Warner Bros.. Please understand, whether or not consensus is against me is irrelevant to the argument. So far, NONE of my arguments have been discredited although I invite you to do so. Stop digressing from the subject matter and if you want to make a subtle argument, read and comprehend. Reginmund (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• All your arguments have been discredited, that's why no-one is listening to you. --WebHamster 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• No one is listening to me? Hmmm.. I guess that is why no one is responding to my posts, right? Please rephrase your words so they actually make sense. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • You're wrong. The film industry in Britian (BAFTA) considers all the HP films British. And consensus is not irrelevant to the discussion - consensus is the byword to which Wikipedia works. So far in this discussion, you appear to have convinced exactly no-one to change their mind. This is the second attempt to change the name in the last 12 months, consensus overwhelmingly is for keeping it as it is. The attempt at ANI also failed to change the name, and no-one is biting for the RfM. - fchd (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, you're wrong. The British Film Institute considers the film to be American.[14] And consensus is completely irrelevant to the discussion. So far in this discussion, you appear to have ignored facts, and by a weakness digressed from the subject matter. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If I understand correctly, the proposal is to change the title of the film to Sorcerer's Stone, since the producer Warner Bros. is based in the USA (even though the same film was released as Philosopher's Stone outside of the USA), but at the same time leave the book article as Philosopher's Stone, since the author Rowling is based in Great Britain. This seems to be an absurd proposition based on a technicality, and may be a candidate that meets the criteria for Ignore All Rules, since it would seem to harm the Wikipedia to have different titles for the two media. Common Sense must be applied. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 06:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are other instances of this, too. Murder, My Sweet is based on a book called Farewell, My Lovely. Yet, the film is also known under the book's original title in the UK, however, the film is located at Murder, My Sweet which is the American title for the American film. Reginmund (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is an american film in it's entirety, filmed in the states, american actors etc, so it's only natural it is known by it's american title. With the exception of the studio, I'm struggling to see if anything else of the harry potter film is american, i.e. every thing about it is quintessentially British. Using your argument of studio/distributor this would lead us to believe that films such as Notting Hill (film) by Polygram is also american films. I suggest this is closed and marked up as resolved, as there have not been any compelling argument for the change, and any further discussion would be just going round in circles. ^Khukri 08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And it wouldn't matter if the actors were Macedonian and the setting was Wallachia. These are not factors in determining the nationality of the film. Sure, one may say that the book is "quintessentially" British which is an unusual word in reference to the ethnicity of a book. Yet, the writer of the film and the director of the film are both Americans. However, this is irrelevant too. The only relevance in the nationality of a film is the studio's nationality. It has been and always will be the determining factor in the film industry. That is why Never Say Never Again is considered an American film as opposed to all of the other Bond films which are British. Notting Hill is a British film since the production actually occurred with Working Title Films. PolyGram only presented it. I suggest you address why the film industry determines a film's nationality by its studio instead of denying the compelling argument for the change. Because the opposers have so thoroughly avoided addressing this, it is the only reason that it is going round in circles. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep at current title. British author, British setting, British actors, British premiere, etc etc. Why are we debating this again? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ugh, OK. I'll repeat myself again. The author is American, Night and the City is set in Britain but is an American film. The Third Man features American actors, but it is a British film. I'm not even going to go near where it was premiered as that is completely irrelevant. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC on title - another arbitrary break

Comment: As an outsider, I see two points that have yet to be made. Firstly, what was the in-production title and the production company name (most films seem to have a spun-off company to manage the project itself)? I would strongly recommend going with the internal name of the film during production as the title (where said title makes sense to be used, of course), as that would be the one used for the longest and known to the cast and the crew. Secondly, the Philosopher's Stone appears to be the proper name for the titular object, and it seems to have never had an established alternative name. LinaMishima (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2008 (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.

Difference between book and film

One difference that has to be included is the fate of Quirrell. In the book Harry doesn't actually kill him (or at least Dumbledore gives that impression as he places the blame on Voldemort) but in the film Harry directly (if unintentionally) kills Quirrell by touching his face. I have added this to the article. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I know its true, unfortunately it can only be included if it is verified with a reliable source. Gran² 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur; there will always be differences between the source material and its adaptation. The way to avoid making an indiscriminate listing of differences is to rely on independent verification, as Gran stated above. We can't purport to state that this particular difference or that particular difference is appropriate for the encyclopedic context of an article. If you're interested in including how the fate of Quirrell differed, try searching for a reliable source that makes that connection, and it could be discussed here to see if the connection is worthwhile. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of Mediation

The article title issue is currently being addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it would have made sense to wait until the RfC has been closed first. - fchd (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense to wait - especially since this is in no way a deadlock; overwhelming consensus seems to be in favour of retaining the current title. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you include me? As I said above, I really couldn't care less what this page is called anymore, I'm neutral. RFMs are only for people who have strong opinions either way, which I no longer have. Gran² 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is known as canvassing, taking an argument all over wikipedia to try and win support. Its not working. You didn't get any support on WP:ANI, only one person agrees with you here, and nobody is responding to your request for mediation. Consensus is massively against you, every argument you have given has been discredited and policy is against you. The article stays named what it is. Deal. With. It. And, leave the dead horse alone.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I agree to mediate, I just want to make sure that when you say "mediate", you just mean to discuss it, and that by agreeing to mediate, I'm not necessarily agreeing to move the article. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation ought not to be necessary at this point. Trout-slapping may be. Neıl ☎ 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as to Anakinjmt's statement. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A swathe of people sniping at each other has been removed. No more, please. Carry on and I'll start blocking both sides for wilful baiting. If you cannot be constructive, then don't say anything. Neıl ☎ 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear (as an uninvovled party) why ,mediation is required? the conensus on this matter seems pretty clear? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the consensus is NOT clear, and evidence has clearly been presented to support the change anyway. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is clear consensus here, that is why the RFC was closed as keep as is. That's why the requested move was closed in July to keep it as is. People have seen the evidence and disputed it. They took it under consideration and decided it was not clear evidence to support a move. Metros (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

indeed, which is why at least 4 uninvolved editors (me being one of them) have suggested the RFM should be pulled as a timewaster. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to mediate here. Consensus is very clear, as it was in numerous previous discussions. Also, you have removed a party from the RfM. The fact that this editor refused to take part in the mediation does not mean you can remove them, and this RfM will therefore fail. BLACKKITE 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why I was included anyway, but I've formally declined the mediation. Gran² 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

N Closed: This case has been rejected by the Mediation Committee. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive RFC seperately?

During the RFC on the title, it was mentioned that this matter has been discussed before, and no doubt it will be discussed again. On matters that are likely to crop up regularly, it seems common to devote a named archive page to the subject. Might I suggest that the RFC, when archiving comes around, is given such a page to help deal with future debates? LinaMishima (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Both of the Title RfC discussions will be archived in due time. Let's try and let the dust settle a bit. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)