Jump to content

Talk:Colombiana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10.3 mil.?

[edit]

The first sentence under the "reception" heading is unclear. I assume it refers to $10.3 million, but it needs clarification. Encyclopedias are not places where one should have to decipher or read between the lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.216.192 (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the catch. Millahnna (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

The plot summary is not up to standard. It only describes the first act of the film. Either the summary needs to be pared down significantly, or the rest of the film needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmcjohn (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then just add whatever you think is important.--Shmaltz (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just be sure it's within 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. —Mike Allen 23:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis is just plain wrong

[edit]

The names of the characters are not as listed. Emilio is the name of the main character's uncle, not her father, while Marco is the name of the main villain's chief henchman. 86.26.17.60 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and fix it.--Shmaltz (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]
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.

Not moved. Firstly this is a multi page move that is not correctly listed. Second, many of the comments are based on there only being two articles sharing this name. From the updated dab page, that assumption is questionable. So with the updated dab page, if someone wants to resubmit this as a multipage move go for it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colombiana (film) → Colombiana – Colombiana is currently a disambiguation page with two entries: this article and Pleurothallis (a genus of orchids). I feel that this article is clearly the primary topic and that a disambiguation page is not necessary; a hatnote for Pleurothallis at the top of this article should suffice. Traffic stats for the last 30 days show approximately 100,000 hits for the film article and 700 hits for the Pleurothallis article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I made and linked the redirect Colombiana (cola). Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think the fame of a movie will outlast the use of a plant genus's name. Paved with good intentions (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :But there is no requirement of provable permanence for any page title. Otherwise every article would have an insufferably long qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Generally I'd agree with that if Colombiana were the official scientific name of the genus, but it's not, it is a South American synonym, and the article about the genus already occupies its official base name; its synonym is not a primary topic for the page title, it is covered on the disambiguation page as a courtesy for readers that may search for it using the synonym. In any event, they are redirected to the page bearing the official title, so whether that is via a disambiguation page or through a hatnote on an article page is irrelevant to the navigation of the reader—it still takes the same amount of time to get to the article. The only article we currently have on Wikipedia that would take the name "Colombiana" is the film, so let the film have it and everything else can be covered by a disambiguation page/hatnote, and that way every article is at the page it should be. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Origin as a sequel to Leon The Professional

[edit]

I think it's interesting to note that this film began life as Mathilda, a sequel to The Professional (1994).

It would work well as a Trivia note, but those are no longer in fashion at Wikipedia. Production note?

Citation: http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=22705 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.56.109 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
FYI
 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: film article promoted to primary topic. After all this time, somebody had to close this discussion, and it looks like the film article meets at least the first requirement of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Basing the decision on how things might look five years from now would be crystal-balling, but as was argued by for instance Theoldsparkle, the competitors are far behind. Favonian (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– See previous discussion above. Film is clearly the primary topic among all uses that are, or have ever been, listed on the disambiguation page currently located at Colombiana. Quoting from previous move request: "Traffic stats for the last 30 days show approximately 100,000 hits for the film article and 700 hits for the Pleurothallis article." relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – the idea that a 2011 film should become the primary topic for a widely-used Spanish/Latin proper adjective that has a disambig page is not supportable. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :This isn't a dictionary. The idea that a film can be the primary topic for an otherwise obscure Spanish/Latin word is easily supportable, and is supported in this case by the readership's use of the encyclopedia to find information about the film. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. Easily verifiable primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a primary topic. We don't have any article on the adjective, so there is no need to disambiguate against it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Another inappropriate use (or abuse) of "primary topic", as a mantra to dismiss utility and convenience from Wikipedia. Nothing is lost by retaining the qualifier; there is no harm in giving the reader a vital piece of information.
See also (of course) the DAB page Columbiana, which is distinct from the DAB page Colombiana. Beyond both of those, look at the 61 articles found by this internal search. The element "columb-" is famously subject to great variability in European languages, and therefore in the huge spread of names that incorporate it. "Primary topic"? If only life, language, and titles were so simple.
NoeticaTea? 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :You mistake this conversation for one of title selection. The primary topic for the title "Colombiana" is the film. Whatever the article title is for that topic, the name Colombiana should lead to it. As it happens, that means that it should be moved to the base name. This is a full and proper use (neither abuse nor inappropriate) of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PRECISION, and WP:COMMONNAME. You'll note that many, many films do not have the (film) qualifier in their titles, as they are either unambiguous or the primary topic for an ambiguous title. This is the wrong forum to try to change that approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::The approach is fine. No problem with The Graduate having the film as primary topic, as it's an important and enduring topic. But to make a 2011 film, with this much ambiguity in its one-word title, primary seems like just recentism. Give it a few years and then decide. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::Better yet, use the correct approach now, and revisit the new arrangement in a few years and then see if it needs to be changed further. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::::Re: with this much ambiguity in its one-word title. What is your definition of ambiguity? I go by WP:D, which says: "refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". On the current dab page at Colombiana, I see four uses including this one, and all but this one are very obscure. So "this much ambiguity" is "very, very little". Of course, if you use a different definition of ambiguity than what is relevant on WP, the meaning of "this much ambiguity" could be much more than that. But that's not relevant here. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::::It is not always helpful to go by the letter of the law, especially when one has had such a close association with such laws. As I said (concerning the element "columb-"), there are a great many terms that can be confused here. Several Wikipedia articles involve those terms, and several of those are assembled at a DAB page. It's a good idea to be flexible, and to consider how the title actually might work (or fail to work) with readers whose expectations you have no hope of predicting and whose needs we can meet ridiculously easily: when there is doubt (as there in this case, in spades), retain the six characters that could help the readers, rather than risk wasting the time and patience of thousands of readers you don't know, but who will silently curse us all if we trip them up. With justification. NoeticaTea? 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per JHunterJ. Dohn joe (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Given that the movie was recently released, it seems likely that the article's popularity will be short-lived. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC talks about long term significance; this does not come down to nothing but hit counts over the last month. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • :It talks about current usage as well as long-term significance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • :If only 10% as many people looked at the film article a year from now, that would still be 10,000 views versus 700 (unless there's some reason to think recent interest in the genus is unusually low). And of those 700 views for the genus, presumably only a small fraction would look it up at "Colombiana" versus one of the other 20 names for the genus. (Literally: it has 21 different names, according to the article.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::I don't know if it makes sense to pick a figure like 10%, but your point remains that the dab page here is not very "deep". I'm withdrawing my opposition. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, for the utility and convenience of readers, the vast majority of whom will be looking for the film with this term. Therefore it makes sense to have the film's article as the primary target and provide a hatnote for those looking at one of the other meanings. Jafeluv (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the only article on WP that would use the title "Colombiana". Everything else currently on the dab page is a partial title match, a redirect, or a Latin or Spanish-language partial title match redirect. Station1 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another clear case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC overwhelmingly supported by page view counts. The only oppose argument I see here based in policy and conventions is that of ErikHaugen. He makes a good point about the film's prominence probably being short-lived, but Theoldsparkle's response is solid too. The other uses are just too obscure to matter. Besides in 3, 5, 10 years we can re-evaluate.

    I find the arguments in opposition based on the term being "ambiguous" with uses not covered in WP to be irrelevant, and arguably WP:IDHT. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, please don't send us on wild goose chases. Those shortcuts are not in common use. For the information of editors here, B2C is sending us to look at the section "Failure or refusal to 'get the point' ", in the behavioural guidelines at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I hold back from the ironic comment that begs to be made here, and simply observe that in RM discussions we call it as we see it – not as any particular faction insists that we ought to see it, with ominous implicit threats of censure under a behavioural guideline. NoeticaTea? 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing this tangent discussion at User talk:Noetica#IDHT. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—No, let's not make rods for our backs all over the place; why engineer more work in the future when the issue is just fine now. Also per Noetica. Tony (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • :I don't think that we're setting ourselves up for any problems in the future since there are currently no other articles on the English Wikipedia that could be titled Colombiana. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • :To expand on my prior statement, the article could have easily been created as Colombiana. This title would have been, and would have remained today, unique on the English Wikipedia. After that, would we have thought it better to move the article to its current disambiguated title or would it not have been useful to leave it at its unique title? I would understand maintaining a status quo when the potential article title could be meant for a myriad of disambiguated article titles but that's not the case. There's still not a single article that links to Colombiana within the main body of the article text so that we can say that there has been firmly established a meaning for this term which would make it confusing for our readers if we were to change it. If the film were to fade into obscurity one day, what article would replace the film at the title Colombiana? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of the "oppose" !votes seem to be rooted in a belief that we should never have a primary topic, because if there are multiple uses of the term, we can't possibly guess which one users might be more likely to be seeking. Even if one of the articles gets more than 100 times as many visitors as the others. I do not find this a particularly reasonable argument, as primary topics have been part of Wikipedia and part of our guidelines presumably since the disambiguation process was invented. If these users want to do away with the concept of a primary topic, they should propose changing the guidelines, but opposing this particular move on that basis doesn't strike me as reasonable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In defense of those apparently favoring the dispensing of primary topic (or something like that, it's not at all clear what exactly it is they favor, which is a big part of the problem), that puts them in a chicken-egg quandary, because such changes to policy are typical rejected on the grounds that we don't things that way at the article level. See User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?.

      That said, after repeated consensus rejections of slight variations of this argument favoring unnecessary disambiguation, at both the article and policy/guideline levels, at some point WP:IDHT does kick in. But even then, since consensus can change, it's unreasonable to make them stop making these disruptive arguments indefinitely. But I think the main proponents should at least stop initiating these arguments for a year or so. Hopefully they will do something like that themselves so we can avoid formal DR to resolve this disruption. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • :In the grand scheme of things, this article and its title will not make or break Wikipedia; we can and should get along whatever the outcome. I don't think the oppose rationales are disruptive and I don't think this issue should get to a formal DR since it really is not that important. If consensus doesn't exist for the proposal, it can't be forced and we shouldn't attempt to do so. I believe the article would benefit from a move to a different title but my voice is one of many and I could be wrong. Let's keep to a minimum the comments on other editors' rationales and motives, please. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ::Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that any behavior in this discussion alone is disruptive or justifies formal DR. But for someone people it could be just another point in a pattern of Wikipedia:TE#One who repeats the same argument without convincing people. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • :I see your point, and I admit that perhaps my annoyance is misdirected. I don't particularly mind if someone wants to !vote to violate a guideline that they don't like (heck, I've done it); the problem, as I'm pretty sure you're well familiar with, is when the closer almost-inevitably comes in and counts the bolded words and treats "Oppose because I don't like the guideline that supports this action" with the same weight as "Support because we have a guideline that explicitly encourages this action." Hey, closer: please don't do that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ::Quite simply, people have different attitudes to the various (sometimes competing) provisions relating to choice of title, and apply them with different weights. It's fine to have a provision for conciseness, and one for "primary topic", and one for recognisability. And then at RMs we sort out how to apply these in a real situation. It isn't that any voter here rejects a provision; but I, for one, reject blind algorithmic application of any provision. I sometimes comment about that in RM discussions. To do so is not disruptive editing (or substitute your favourite cliquey mnemonic for your favourite behavioural guideline here); it's just normal Wikipedian dialogue. NoeticaTea? 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The four opposes may be correct that this will no longer be primary usage when the film stops running. I see no evidence for - or against - this; it would be difficult to establish either case without a crystal ball to scry in. But it is primary usage now; and we have misplaced our crystal ball. If usage changes, we can come back to this in six months; we are a wiki. JCScaliger (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The evidence for a primary topic at present is overwhelming. We do not use crystal balls and vague intuitions to try to guess what usage will be in the future. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A pity the format for non-primary topics (if that's the right term) is so hard to parse. It would be nice to know if the article you are looking at is about animal, vegetable, or mineral, but the parentheses just look odd in an encyclopedia title. I suspect there would be less resistance to providing more information in the title if there was a subtitle option in, say, a smaller font.Neotarf (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC
  • Support. I googled Colombiana -wikipedia and checked the first four pages of results. The film is the topic of almost all of these results. Nothing that came up could be considered an alternative or "No. 2" topic for this term. The Colombian Embassy in Washington did come up, perhaps because of its URL (www.colombiaemb.org). In addition, there are a couple of hits for the financial services company Corficolombiana. This appears to be another example of partial title matching or mistargeting. The Colombiana lemma is just a DAB now. It's safe to say that very few of the readers who type in this term are looking for a DAB -- and that will remain true even if this movie is a complete flop. Kauffner (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colombiana&oldid=1249132936"