Talk:Ape (1976 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Ape (1976 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928165356/http://www.dvdcult.com/rev_APE.htm to http://www.dvdcult.com/rev_APE.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2019

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 02:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ape (1976 film) → A*P*E – The title is an acronym, styled A*P*E in on-screen credits, which can be viewed here. The closest comparison would be to MASH (film) and M*A*S*H (TV series), with the film's on-screen credits depicted without asterisks and the TV series' credits depicted with asterisks. Since the Ape (disambiguation)#Films page lists two additional films titled "Ape" as well as two films titled "The Ape", all of which use parenthetical qualifiers indicating the years of distribution, I would not oppose the forms A*P*E (film) or even A*P*E (1976 film) if consensus were to skew toward the depiction of the main header with a qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, neutral. I agree that it has to be moved as an acronym, but asterisks seem to be stylistic in themselves per MOS:TM ("avoid macy*s") and articles like N.E.R.D replace them with full stops, and the current discussion at Talk:B*A*P*S is steering that way. Or, of course, we have the simple, neutral all-caps. So, I would much rather support either A.P.E (film) or APE (film), but the full name A*P*E would be okay if that's the consensus. Lazz _R 12:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I don't see consistent use of the proposed styling in independent reliable sources, and since the asterisks are an unusual styling, we shouldn't use them unless independent sources do so consistently (MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM). IMDb uses "Ape". DVD Cult uses "A.P.E." Americankaiju has both "A*P*E" and "APE". The sourcing is a bit thin, but I don't see a clear justification for a change here. If it is changed, it should either use "APE" or "A.P.E." (including a dot at the end). Regarding the other comment about B*A*P*S, please note that the current discussion favors also having a dot at the end, as B.A.P.S. or B.A.P.S. (film). Note also that the result of the last RM for N.E.R.D was "N.E.R.D.", not "N.E.R.D". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There was also a similar outcome at Talk:B.E.D. (film) a few months ago. PC78 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One size does not fit all. Wikipedia contains a very large number of unpunctuated acronyms, such as FBI or BFI, as well as some punctuated ones, but there is only a handful of these specialized acronyms which mostly specify film titles, while occasionally referencing other topics, such the band name N.E.R.D (there is also an entry for the book series N.E.R.D.S.). The atypical or irregularly punctuated forms should be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on appearance in a film's opening title credits or (in the case of N.E.R.D) the form used in the band's website or on the covers of their albums.

The most obvious example of inconsistency is "MASH", which has separate entries for the media franchise M*A*S*H, the compendium article List of M*A*S*H novels, the book MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors, the motion picture MASH (film) and the long-running M*A*S*H (TV series), which use inconsistent punctuation (the film's poster indicates M • A • S • H, but the on-screen credits depict MASH). As for end punctuation, A*P*E is analogous to M*A*S*H which (when depicted with asterisks) does not add an asterisk after the final letter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The asterisks are just attention grabbing styling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 15 October 2022

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ape (1976 film) → APE (film) – In view of the support extended to Megan (2023 film) → M3GAN at the currently active Talk:Megan (2023 film)#Requested move 13 October 2022, this film title representing an acronym may be also ready for a move. The 1976 film APE would not be the sole uppercase main title header listed upon the Ape (disambiguation) page, which also contains AJAX Push Engine, ANSI/POSIX Environment, APE tag, APE100, AVS plugin effect, APE Con, APE 4.80, APE Foundation and APE (stock ticker). Since there is also Ape (2012 film), if consensus were to prefer Ape (1976 film) → APE (1976 film), I would also support such a compromise. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose as per previous. 킹콩의 대역습 (King Kong eui daeyeokseup) the 1976 monster film is not an acronym, should not be caps, and is not the only film called Ape. So absolutely not, no. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: It's clearly more of a backronym than an acronym. Ambiguating the title is not helpful to readers, and Wikipedia tends to discourage all-caps titles. Please also see the discussion of the previous RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As can be seen above at Talk:Ape (1976 film)#Requested move 20 August 2019, a nomination regarding this topic was submitted more than three years ago, although the current nomination is not a duplicate of that three-year-old nomination, which had proposed the addition of two asterisks [A*P*E]. The three-year-old nomination had engendered three bolded responses — 1) Comment: "I agree that it has to be moved as an acronym... I would much rather support either A.P.E (film) or APE (film)", 2) Oppose: "If it is changed, it should either use "APE" or "A.P.E."" and 3) "Oppose: The asterisks are just attention grabbing styling." Thus, the "comment" was a "support" vote in all but name and the two "oppose" votes solely opposed the use of asterisks and not the use of caps [APE]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I was one of the people whose comments you're talking about. Before saying "if it is changed, ...", my comment said "IMDb uses 'Ape'. ... I don't see a clear justification for a change here." In other words, before saying what I think should be done if it is changed, I said it should not be changed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, you did not express specific opposition to the use of caps, only to the use of asterisks, and even provided the suggested improvements "APE" or "A.P.E.", thus intimating that you would not oppose those two alternatives. Also, although you did not dispute that APE was an acronym, for the record, the film itself indicates that A*P*E stands for "Attacking Primate MonstEr, with the deliberate intention to spoof the acronym title of M*A*S*H, a popular 1970 film and subsequent TV series of the same name that was based in Korea where this film was produced". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could have been more clear, but I did not really say that "APE" or "A.P.E." would be OK with me. I was only saying I thought they were better choices than "A*P*E". I'm not sure whether I still think that now, but that's what I meant to say at the time. I note that the quoted discussion of the spoof aspect and the abbreviation aspect is unsourced. IMDb uses "Ape". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, regarding "Ape" versus "APE", while the main title header of IMDb's entry does indeed use the form "Ape", virtually all other film resources, such as Rotten Tomatoes, AllMovie or TV Guide, use "APE", "A.P.E" or "A*P*E", which is indicated to mean "Attacking Primate MonstEr", as depicted in this google search. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff turned up by that Google search looks like Wikipedia or other Wikis/UGCs. Wikipedia's guideline, e.g. per MOS:TM, is that when sources are mixed, we use the style that most resembles ordinary English. No one would ordinarily abbreviate the phrase "attacking primate monster" as "APE" or "A*P*E" in ordinary English. (And the asterisks on the promotional art are tiny.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than IMDb, sources are not mixed — virtually all use uppercase, including contemporary reviews. Wikipedia lists a number of all-caps film titles that also represent ordinary English words, such as F.I.S.T. (film) or L.I.E. (film). As for user-generated sources, Rotten Tomatoes, AllMovie or TV Guide are certainly not user generated. The link to the film itself that was provided in the lead sentence of the August 2019 nomination is still active and the asterisks are not tiny in the film's own credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you'll find mostly uppercase if you do a Google search that includes asterisks. Nobody would include asterisks without using uppercase. And the sources are mixed between different forms. The Allmovie link you provided shows cover art that does not include any asterisks or dots. The Rotten Tomatoes title has dots. TV Guide doesn't provide unique entries – they also have a separate page for Attack of the Giant Horny Gorilla, which is the same movie. When sources are mixed, we use ordinary English formatting. None of these are ordinary English abbreviations of "attacking primate monster". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Pure stylisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.