Talk:The Farewell (2019 film)

How to add the Chinese title?

The Chinese title of this film is Chinese: 别告诉她; pinyin: bié gào​sù tā, which means Don't Let Her Know (or Don't Tell Her). Is there a good way to include the Chinese name in this article? I think adding the Chinese name to the infobox would be nicer than running it into the text. The {{infobox name module}} thing is for the original non-English title of a Chinese movie (which appears under its English title in English Wikipedia). Which this isn't.

Also, can somebody tell me which is the better translation: don't let her know or don't tell her? M.boli (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @M.boli: I'll add it in a template WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Some concern has been expressed about placing the Chinese title in the first line; however, I would suggest The Tunnel (TV series), The Bridge (2011 TV series), and Leon: The Professional as precedents for formatting. Notably, The Crimson Rivers contradicts the notion that a film's nationality dictates whether an alternate language title is included in an article's lead; in fact, the article is understandably indexed on the site under the title of its secondary language. I hope this information can be of use. Thank you for your efforts. 2600:1700:6A96:60:184C:EBD0:D0D0:880 (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue is resolved. Look at the section immediately below. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Reception

Because of the film's contents and industry connections to China, I'm curious about its reception there. Most articles I've come across only refer to its box office numbers; however, seeing as China was in the midst of dealing with COVID-19, I suspect these numbers might be affected. So, I feel a more accurate perspective might be a Chinese film site. For instance, on Douban.com, the film has a 7.3/10 rating (almost comparable to the film's current rating on IMDB). Thus, it would be nice to at least see this fact mentioned and potentially a few lines regarding the film from Chinese critics as well.

2600:1700:6A96:60:4436:2F27:903:97EA (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help with such a section. But there will likely be push-back. Yours is the third time the Chinese name has been put into this article.

• I added the Chinese name of this movie a while back. It was deleted, but I restored it. In January somebody deleted it again with the abrupt comment "this is an American film." (Someone had migrated the Chinese name to the top of the infobox before it was deleted, which might have made it a bigger target.)
• I had to defend adding Constance Wu's Chinese name to her Wikipedia article.
• Somebody removed the mention that the TV series Fresh Off the Boat is covered in Chinese-languaged media, along with a quote from the Chinese media.

I'm all-in with helping to add the Chinese name and Chinese coverage, even with my limited Chinese, but know that we would would likely need to defend it. Toward that end it would be helpful to have a Wikipedia login account. Being an IP user tends to lower credibility in Wikipedia disucssions. -- M.boli (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese name is acceptable. But note that IMDb is not a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Translating with Google also is not a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really doubt that 别告诉她 is the Chinese name for this film? Just click on the link for the Chinese version of this article. When the information is correct it is rude to delete the information because you don't like the reference. Find a more acceptable reference. And by the way, those are all HSK-1 and -2 words, anybody who can pass the most basic two levels of the official Chinese competency exam can translate this simple imperative sentence. -- M.boli (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@M.boli: Actually I looked at the beginning of the film and see that the title is in Chinese in the film itself. That's sufficient to include the Chinese title, although the additional source that you found (Yahoo Finance) is needed for the translation. Feel free to restore it to the lead sentence with the source. That having been said, before calling someone rude, please read WP:V, WP:RS/IMDB, and WP:RS. The issue here isn't whether I "like the reference". It is irrelevant what your or my personal opinion is about the title. What matters is citing a reliable source, and neither IMDb nor Google Translate is a reliable source. In situations like this, if you spend a couple of minutes finding a source or discussing as we have here instead of griping about other editors who ask that Wikipedia policy be followed, there shouldn't be a problem. And if you would tone down the combative attitude and discuss issues you might not get as much push back as you have described. Wikipedia is a collaborative project without professional editorial oversight. Policies and discussion are necessary. Sundayclose (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Sorry! I got things off on the wrong foot. Thanks for taking the trouble to work on the question, read the reference, go check the film. I placed the information at the end of the lead section. I think putting the Chinese name in the lede sentence would make sense for a Chinese film, but this is an English film, a U.S. production which happens to be bilingual.

I've had many conversations, both in person and online, with people who tell me they tried to contribute something to Wikipedia and they will never do that again. Wikipedia gets its reputation as an unfriendly place because instead of working with the well-meaning masses, their useful contributions to the Stone Soup are often simply reverted.

So as I see things, when somebody contributes something nutritious to the soup I try to keep it. If the contribution shows up in an imperfect state, I'll work on it. Isn't that somewhere within those five pillars of Wikipedia?

My complaint was: an IP editor put in something useful and tried to engage on the talk page. I engaged. Then you came by and swung the axe. It looked like you didn't even try to find out whether the contribution was correct or not. Mentioning that the source was unreliable, as you did, can indeed be helpful. But when an IP user's correct contribution is totally sliced out it looks rude. It's the nugget of many of those "I'll never do that again" stories I've listened to.

Of course the median edit that shows up on the watchlist deserves to be simply reverted. I have several hundred pages on my watchlist, they accumulate over the years. Nobody has the time or effort to check them all out. The fresh contributions from an IP editor or a new person --- or even an experienced editor --- will often be misplaced within the article, maybe POV, need a rewrite, bad sourcing, etc. (BTW: I didn't know imdb was on the unreliable source list, I would have fixed that.) So sometimes I end up slicing out fresh content which would have been better kept and improved. I definitely won't attend to everything, I let stuff go by, especially on the well-patrolled pages where other editors will catch it. It ain't perfect.

I much appreciate that you engaged with the content. And when you sliced out the IP user's contribution, you went to the talk page. It reinforces that you are coming from a place of being helpful and cooperative. And if we cross paths in the future, I'll be mindful that we have different styles. -- M.boli (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@M.boli: Thanks for your reply. I've gotten off on the wrong foot a few times myself over the years. But I still must disagree that it is rude to point out a policy violation, especially when the link to the guideline or policy is provided. It doesn't have to be done harshly (and I don't think I did that), but it's important to do it rather than simply ignore it. Otherwise the editor who violates the policy does not learn that there are policies that need to be followed. As Jimbo has said, "'Our social policies are not a suicide pact'". I agree with you that there are some editors here who make things unnecessarily complicated. And unfortunately there are also a few editors who feel that they should be allowed to play by their own rules; they usually drop out after they realize that can't happen. But dealing with both types is the price we pay for having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyway, I'm glad we sorted this out, and I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References