Talk:Parasite (2019 film)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baeksusan (article contribs).

Requested move 2 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. This is one of the examples where WP:NOTAVOTE is relevant. On a simple numerical basis, not moving has a clear numerical advantage (about 75% of the responses). However, nearly all of the comments in opposition to the move are, in effect, seeking to relitigate or otherwise set aside the 2019 partial disambiguation RfC. A RM discussion is not the place for that; if editors feel so emotive about partial disambiguation, then they are welcome to open a new RfC at WT:AT or WT:D.

This is basically another Thriller-type RM – closed by myself – and I am going to apply the same test here as I did there: is there a consensus that the 2019 film Parasite is the primary topic for all films called Parasite?. Again, the answer is clearly yes; as Station1 has shown, the page views for this article dwarf the views for the other relevant topics. Nobody has sought to argue that, instead trying to disapply an editing guideline locally. Again, this is not the place for that. Like it or not, but Wikipedia guidelines say that partial disambiguations are allowed for primary topics that pass a heightened test, and nobody has argued that Parasite doesn't pass that relevant test. Sceptre (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

To further clarify the close: there is a common assertion in this discussion that there can only be one primary topic for one article title. This isn’t what the PDAB RfC consensus was. And, intuitively, the conclusion from that RfC makes sense; if you ask someone “have you seen Parasite?”, then they (unless they’re a huge Demi Moore fan) mean this film; on the other hand, asking “have you seen Crash?”, one could easily ask “do you mean the car crash sex film or the Oscar winner?”. Whether the heightened threshold for specific primality in these cases is met is as much of a Potter Stewart test as whether the base threshold for general primality is met, but, like I said above, there is an overwhelming argument that it is met, taken out for dinner, and ended up with a nice walk on the beach in this case. Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Parasite (2019 film) → Parasite (film) – This discussion is a continuation of the WP:RFD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Parasite (film) for the redirect Parasite (film); the discussion was closed on procedural grounds since multiple participants saw the request as a move request instead of a redirect discussion. In the aforementioned discussion, the following rationale was presented by King of Hearts:

Parasite (2019 film) is a Thriller (album)-level primary topic for this WP:PDAB, receiving over 99% of pageviews for all films called "Parasite" (including Parasite (1982 film) and The Parasite (1925 film)). Recentism isn't really an issue as the 2019 film is genuinely much more important, having won the Palme d'Or and 4 Academy awards including Best Picture. Retarget.

...I note this page had previously been discussed for moving in February 2020, and the discussion can be found at Talk:Parasite (2019 film)/Archive 1#Requested move 10 February 2020. For the record, I am neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Narky Blert, Seventyfiveyears, and Shhhnotsoloud: Pinging participants of the RfD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I feel this is premature, similar to when the question of making Avatar the film the primary topic over Avatar the spiritual idea. I realize this is less of a impact , but I'd still say its the type of discussion to wait for a year or so more to see if this film still is considered the principle film target. Otherwise, it still requires one extra click for the reader searching for it to be find. --Masem (t) 19:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • To add I think I have to oppose on the basis this adds no gain to a user searching for this film. The current Parasite (about the biological topic) will never be displaced as the common term, so this article will always require disambiguation title, and while it likely will remain the most common title for the film, the fact we have to disambiguate it gives no gain; a user will still likely end up at Parasite (disambiguation) if searching for this. The only thing that should be done (and which already is done) is to hatnote this film as a link at the top of Parasite given how popular it is. --Masem (t) 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The entire purpose of disambiguation is to effectively disambiguate one page from another, which this doesn't do. If having this at the base name was an option it would be one thing (I don't think anyone would argue this is the primary topic for Parasite alone), but otherwise being the most significant among other disambiguated topics doesn't mean the disambiguation should be incomplete. That being said, I see a benefit to directing the proposed title to this page, since it is clearly the intended target for most readers and would be the most helpful for them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "I still don't see any upside to partial disambiguation. It's still disambiguation... just more ambiguous. Obviously people feel differently, but in my view, it seems a bit self-defeating. I'll probably go to my grave regretting my failure to oppose that Thriller move." I wrote this last May about Melodrama (Lorde album), and it remains true here. I wouldn't mind another look at the Thriller page, but I get that ~10 RMs or however many is probably overkill. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

*Support per nomination above. Their are many films that named as "Parasite" in years before this 2019 film. In Google search, "Parasite (film)" are most likely refers to 2019 film unless their search disambiguated year of film that being released before 2019 so it is clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I not involved in February RM discussion but i think this film clearly as primary film to Parasite. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Strike sock !vote.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:INCDAB. Partial disambiguation is nearly always a bad idea, and the currently popular topic is also rather WP:RECENT. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per overwhelming pageviews. All WP:primary topic titles are by definition incomplete disambiguation; otherwise we'd have parenthetically qualified titles whenever more than one topic might have identical titles. Incomplete disambiguation is completed by use of hatnotes, and dab pages where necessary. Note that as a redirect Parasite (film) gets 17 views per day, virtually all of whom want the 2019 film and not a dab page. It's for those 17 that a move will be beneficial. Station1 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Incomplete disambiguation is titles that have a qualifier that is ambiguous not base names even if they are ambiguous. Let it Be (song) and Higham, Suffolk are incomplete disambiguaion while Smile(s) and Halstead are base names. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per the pageviews shown by Station1. I would've said it's too son, but the difference is overwhelming. El Millo (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per BarrelProof. St3095 ^(?) 06:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCF. There are other films with this title. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But other films that you refer with same name (1925 and 1982 films) are not notable than 2019 film even with different genres. The similar name film in 1982 played by Demi Moore is actually a horror film. 180.242.45.27 (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

All films titled Parasite are all secondary topics and need to be disambiguated from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am much more amenable to an incompletely disambiguated redirect than an incompletely disambiguated title, as I explained in my RfD nomination. (Note that both are allowed, per WP:INCDAB.) On the one hand, this is clearly the primary topic among films called Parasite, but on the other hand if we're going to disambiguate a title at all, we might as well do so unambiguously. So I don't really support or oppose this proposal, unlike my strong support for my preferred approach (a primary redirect). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: If this page is moved as proposed, an option afterwards could be to propose a "Parasite (film) → Parasite (2019 film)" move afterwards. From my understanding from the RfD, the baseline claim is that the title with the "(film)" disambiguator should represent the subject of this article, whether by renaming the article or retargeting the redirect here. In my experiences, such a baseline claim is better initiated and advertised as a move request since they tend to garner more input since a bot advertises the discussion on many more pages than what traditionally happens with an RfD discussion. (Considering that the article itself is tagged during an ongoing move discussion, those who read or watch the article itself are likely to participate.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose because the only primary topic here is parasite. The primary topic is completely singular. Any topic that needs to be disambiguated is automatically secondary. The 2019 film Parasite is secondary, no matter what. If there are other films also called Parasite, they all need to be disambiguated from each other. Wikipedia does not deal with hierarchies, saying this topic is the most important, that topic is the second most important, this topic is the third... among a set of topics, there can only be one primary (if there is even one at all), and we already know what that is here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment WP:INCDAB: In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying one is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. In those cases in which a partially disambiguated title has a clear primary topic, it should either be the title of the article for that topic or redirect to it. Don't treat this RfC as if it couldn't happen. This case may not meet the threshold in your opinion, but saying something like There are other films with this title isn't enough to justify a !vote. El Millo (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is when used with WP:NCF, or to be more exact, the WP:PRIMARYFILM part of WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Erik. This is one of many secondary topics. Scribolt (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly per Erik. kennethaw88 • talk 23:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLE; the album by Mr Jackson is a case of disruptive WP:IAR/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that continues to waste time on other article discussions such as here. No. There are no sub-primaries. (Would invite new IP editor to familiarise themselves with WP titling policy and register an account). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You know that is a blatant lie. -- Calidum 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - intentional introduction of ambiguity is antithetical to the intent behind our titling policies. PDAB seems to exist only to satisfy fans, not the long-term interests of the project, and seems to generate far too many unnecessary discussions such as this one. -- Netoholic @ 10:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. MapReader (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No partial disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Partial disambiguation is allowed according to a previous RFC (In fact, continued ignorance of this is likely a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem). This is clearly the primary topic for all movies named "Parasite" -- Calidum 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support as indicated indirectly by the nom with the Thriller (album) example, and more directly by Facu-el Millo, Calidum and others, Erik and all “per Erik” opposers are wrong, their Oppose positions have no basis in policy, and their !votes need to be unweighted accordingly. Yes, primary topic for a partial dab needs to meet a higher threshold but that’s clearly met here, by overwhelming page views and long-term significance due to the Best Picture award. —В²C ☎ 19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's all false. Thriller (album) is inherently ambiguous and is simply grandfathered in because of editors thinking that "Thriller (album)" means anything outside of Wikipedia. Nobody but experienced editors will actually type that in search queries. There is no primary topic for thriller, so all topics called that are secondary topics. They should be disambiguated from each other. There is no reason to look at a list of shared topics on a disambiguation page and say, this one isn't the primary topic, but we should make it more ambiguous so it can be between primary and secondary. Why would you support that? If you think the album Thriller is the primary topic, then start a RM discussion to move it to Thriller. Otherwise, it's not the primary topic and should be disambiguated. It never needed to be more complicated than that, especially when determining a primary topic is a process in itself. Why do we need to determine between-primary-and-secondary topics? Keep it simple, stupid. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  So you're against Wikipedia:PDAB, Erik? El Millo (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's an information page that seems more like an essay in pushing for more ambiguity and more "exceptions". Editors should not reference their Wikipedia-navigating experience to assume that the average reader will type in precisely the title and the disambiguation term. They're more likely to type something like parasite movie, and that's a red link (at this time). The disambiguation terms are simply sorting mechanisms because of how Wikipedia names its articles and links to them. The design could have been different in some other way, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is not detrimental to have this level of detail for the average reader, and it is unnecessary to introduce ambiguity. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Your opinion is shared by a few others but is contrary to community consensus established at WP:INCDAB and exemplified repeatedly at WP:PDAB#List of partially disambiguated article titles. Please stop expressing your minority opinion as if it is consensus. It’s not. —-В²C ☎ 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This isn’t about Parasite; it is about Parasite (film). Being a non-primary topic of a base name, like Thriller or Parasite, does not disqualify a topic from being primary for a partially disambiguated (PDAB) title, like Thriller (album) or Parasite (film). The PRIMARYTOPIC for Thriller (album) is the Michael Jackson album. The PRIMARYTOPIC for Parasite (film) is this Academy Award best picture winner. It’s the same logic as for any PRIMARYTOPIC case. There is no question that if not for the other film uses of Parasite, Parasite (film) would be the title of this article. But ambiguity with other uses alone does not necessarily disqualify a PDAB from being an article title (or PRIMARYREDIRECT for that matter). If page views or long-term significance clearly show a use is primary for a PDAB, then the article about that topic should be at that PDAB title. But this is all explained at WP:PDAB and WP:INCDAB. See in particular the many examples listed at WP:PDAB#List of partially disambiguated article titles. Your misguided statements contrary to policy and conventions are not helpful. -—В²C ☎ 20:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2020 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parasite (2019 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A very good article, but several issues need to be addressed and corrected in order for it to get promoted. The sections with issues are listed bellow.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

References from no. 137 to 144 all have unformatted, "raw" url links. Sources no. 95, 96 as well. This needs to be properly formatted, like the rest of the references.

• References have been reformatted. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Filming

"The director of photography for the film is Hong Kyung-pyo." No source at the end of this paragraph.

• Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Music

"...the romanisation of names and nouns used are slightly different from those seen in the official English subtitles as translated by Darcy Paquet." The same issue, no source at the end of this paragraph.

• Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Accolades

"being the third film to win both grand prizes after the former and The Lost Weekend." Again, no source at the end of this paragraph.

• Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

This section just quotes the reviews verbatim. Quote after quote after quote. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This needs to be summarized and editorized, with the examples being The Thing, Ghostbusters II and others.

• @3E1I5S8B9RF7: I have compacted the information presented in the section and have paraphrased a few quotes, which I think is sufficient enough to count as completed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

Promoting the article, since the issues have been addressed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This sentence is clunky and belongs in the Reception Section

"The film was considered by many critics to be the best film of 2019 as well as one of the best films of the 21st century, and is the 46th highest-rated film of all-time on Metacritic." The first part is fine but the second part about metacritic just makes the article sound like it was written by a bunch of amateurs. Can we fix this???WikiHelper200 (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)