Talk:Emma (2020 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 articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title of film, styled as Emma. with a fullstop.

The film is styled Emma. that is, with a fullstop, as the director Autumn de Wilde explained in an interview with the Radio Times, “There’s a period at the end of Emma because it’s a period film,” she said. “It’s true! Jamie Stuart (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Periods are not stylizations. The period is an officially part of the title's punctuation. It's not like "Se7en" or "Alien³". 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:4544:A2E2:4860:2F11 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Punctuation is often just stylization. There have been a lot of discussions about this as part of Wikipedia house style consensus building. There is even an example of including a terminal period as an improper example in MOS:TM: "skate.". It says to use "Skate" instead. Unless a clear majority of independent reliable sources include the period, it should not be included here. I believe it has never been part of the title of this article, except for a bold move on 2 March 2020‎ that was reverted within three hours and another one on 11 March 2020‎ that was reverted within a half hour. If you disagree, there are instructions to follow at WP:RM. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about if I disagree. I reverted your bold move because the correct and official title is Emma. — the onus is now on you to convince us of your case. "skate." is stylized because of the lowercase S. 90.249.244.206 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you believe that the MOS:TM advice to use "Skate" instead of saying to use "Skate." is some kind of accident? — BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ambiguous guide. And how is a period any different to an exclamation point in interrupting the flow of a sentence? And why would you consider one stylization but not the other? See Mother! 90.249.244.206 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose an improvement to the MOS:TM guidelines, I suggest to start a conversation at WT:MOSTM. "Mother!" is not a Wikipedia guideline. It is just some article on Wikipedia that attracts fewer page views than this one and has no special importance, and it does not even involve a terminating full stop. It is just a distraction. It would be better to look to the guidelines and to similar situations that have involved terminating full stops and have had formal discussions with consensus outcomes, such as:

Respect (magazine), an article that starts with "Respect (stylized as Respect.) is a New York-based hip hop and photojournalism magazine ..."
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, which starts with "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard is a 2009 American comedy film directed by ..." (no mention of the full stop)
Your Name, which starts with "Your Name (Japanese: 君の名は。, Hepburn: Kimi no Na wa) is a 2016 Japanese animated romantic fantasy film produced by ..." (no mention of the full stop)

None of those open the article with the terminally punctuated version. All of them have had formal RM discussions with consensus outcomes. Two of the three don't even mention the terminally punctuated version.

— BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the comment above refers to me making a "bold move". I did not move the article. I only edited its content. The article title is Emma (2020 film). If someone would like to propose moving the article, there are instructions at WP:RM. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title in article text

Since this film is stylized with a period at the end as "Emma.", I would like to come to a consensus about whether or not to use "Emma" or "Emma." (in italics) in article text. I would argue that to use the title with the period throughout the article, at the start or in the middle of a sentence, looks jarring. It's different from Airplane! because we can tell that that the whole title is italicized, including the punctuation mark. We don't have that tell with the period here. There is not a compelling need to repeatedly include the period especially when Emma by itself suffices to connect readers to that particular element (among other elements in the text). What do other editors think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the stylization in the lead and refer to it simply without the period for the remainder of the article, per MOS:TMSTYLE. Nardog (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention and the infobox should include the period, but I suggest adding a note like at Capernaum (film), so the lead sentence doesn't have clutter like "stylized with a period at the end" (it's not stylization, anyway). The external links should include the period, too, since it's not prose, and the links in question also include it. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:4544:A2E2:4860:2F11 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Erik that the body of the article should not use the period. The first three major articles I found about the film all use the title without a period when referring to it: The New York Times, Variety, and IndieWire. And in response to the above user's claim that the period is not stylization, the IndieWire article also calls it such. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IndieWire is but one source. Punctuation has never been stylization. Is M*A*S*H stylized? No, it's punctuated. Stylization is taking something and altering it - not adding things. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:508:786F:7EAF:7AC (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at MOS:TMRULES, which uses skate. as an exemplar. Nardog (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in that example, the lower case S is the stylization. Again: stylization is styling something - not adding new things or taking away things. See Mother! 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:508:786F:7EAF:7AC (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The example explicitly says to omit the period. It says to use use "Skate" (without the punctuation mark), not "skate." (with the punctuation mark). — BarrelProof (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fullstop should be used in the article title (it's recently been removed) and the lede with explanation then without the fullstop thereafter in the article. Jamie Stuart (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our common sources (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo) seem consistent in using the period so I say we should include it in the article title and infobox. However, I would apply a bit of WP:IAR here and not use it in the prose where it interferes with sentence structure. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although the very first mention in the first sentence should stay as it is with the ref. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C4DB:818C:C082:9126 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for causing you unnecessary work, Nardog; it never occurred to me to read the present talk page before adding the full stop/period in the article title, which was obviously intended by the producers. Thank you for reverting my earlier move, as I was unaware of the prior discussion here. For what it’s worth, I would agree with Jamie Stuart and Betty Logan, for the reasons they provided, and I would still align the article title with the film’s punctuated title, per MOS:AT: The final character should not be punctuation unless it is part of a name (Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), or ....
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 14:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind an RM, but the destination should be Emma., not Emma. (2020 film), as there are no other article beginning with "Emma." (WP:SMALLDETAILS). Nardog (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply, Nardog. I agree fully with your suggestion; given the earlier discussion above, what would be your plan of action, please? Do we simply apply your RM on the basis of MOS:AT alone? Thanks again.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 16:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you so firmly believe the article should be moved then open an RM. My plan of action is to do nothing because I don't. Nardog (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I will walk away since I am unable to persuade you of the merits of MOS:AT in this case and there is, therefore, no consensus. Thanks again for triggering our discussion.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 16:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to "Emma." 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:E9DB:57B7:536E:C74B (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. A quick look at Google News results shows that the period version is much less used than the non-period version, so the latter meets WP:COMMONNAME. The opening sentence mentioning the period is sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support use of the period in only the first mention and infobox title, not the title or in running text. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Emma (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Emma (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 20:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma (1996 theatrical film)

Disambiguation need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides 1996, there were also other film versions with the same name. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightly's age.

Has no film critic made note of the apparent age of Knightly in this film? Instead of the older, wiser man guiding Emma Woodhouse's life, he seems barely older than she. Other versions give him that wiser gravitas, why not this one? It seems glaring to me. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Costuming?

One of the things this film is noted for is the costuming. The beauty of the clothing and hats, especially wealthy Emma Woodhouse's wardrobe, and its accuracy to the period, right down to the fact that Emma wore no underpants (as revealed in the dressing scene where she stands in from of the fireplace to warm her bare bumper). After all, Alexandra Byrne was nominated for Best Costume Design for this film a number of times, including the Academy Awards and BAFTA. (Ms Byrne won the Chicago Film Critics Association award.) The best this article does mentioning costuming is a portion of two sentences. In the Emma (1996 theatrical film) article (the Paltrow version) has a whole section devoted to costuming with a photo of Emma's wedding dress.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]