To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
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.
The result of the proposal was No consensus to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please state whether or not you support the renaming of this article.
Oppose - The naming convention is flawed. The current name precisely describes what this article is about. "Series" would be more ambiguous. — WiseKwai 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -- In my observation, these 3 films are always referred to as a trilogy. Also, they really are 3 parts (or chapters) of a single story, with neither the 1st nor 2nd part having an actual "ending," so the word "series" does not really fit. The naming convention, construed liberally, would (at first glance) seem to apply because of the general way it is worded. But I do not think it fits in this unique circumstance. Z Wylld 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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.
Dubious claim about the film being the longest fiction film ever made
The intro currently states: "Altogether, the trilogy is 9 hours, 47 minutes long, not including intermissions, and is the longest fiction film ever made." But what about Jacques Rivette's Out 1, which is nearly 13 hours long? Is Rivette's film not fiction? Perhaps the source (an obituary for Kobayashi, written in 1996) which makes this claim for The Human Condition was not aware of Rivette's film, which was not widely distributed until 2015. Anyway, I'm going to add a dubious tag to the line in question; people are welcome to discuss here. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone edited it to say "one of the longest" which seems like a good compromise. Can we therefore remove the dubious tag? If taken as a trilogy then obviously the component parts don't approach a record, but taken as a single film (which many people seem to do) nine hours seems way up there. Unless there is another source somewhere listing many other films greater than nine hours. Henry chianski (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed the _dubious_ tag, since it is clearly considered one of the longest films. Heck, Wikipedia's own list lists it near the top. I do think it is slightly dubious, since it is in one sense a trilogy (the sentence I revised strangely embraced this paradox: Altogether, the trilogy is 9 hours, 47 minutes long, not including intermissions, and is one of the longest fiction films ever made.) and as a series of films it is not very long. It is only long when you consider it as a single film, which seems a bit arbitrary (what prevents _House of Cards_ being seen as a single film?). That said, it has clearly come to be seen as a single film by many, so it is not Wikipedia itself that is being dubious/arbitrary. Jun-Dai (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)