Talk:The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared (film)

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

Requested move 29 February 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. — Film Fan 22:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated|The Hundred Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared (film)}}

The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared (film) → The Hundred Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared (film) – Per WP:NCF, this is the WP:COMMONNAME in the majority of the English-speaking world (UK,[1] Canada,[2] Australia,[3] New Zealand,[4] etc.), while the US is the only country that uses the "100" spelling and also the only English-speaking country not to include the word "of" in the title. The current title of this Wikipedia article is a mash-up of the US title and the international title but isn't, in fact, either. — Film Fan 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the film - not the book. — Film Fan 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed. I know it's about the film and not the book. The book is at The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared, which is the correct title, so the film should also be at this title. Your rationale of it being the "Official title" by quoting Amazon's US site is incorrect. Hey, guess what, the US site has the book at the [http://www.amazon.com/100-Year-Old-Man-Climbed-Window-Disappeared/dp/1401324649/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456840821&sr=1-1&keywords=Jonas+Jonasson other title] too, even though that article is at the correct name here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My logic isn't flawed, but your point that the book sometimes goes by the "100" title too perhaps means we do need the disambiguator. You give no reason why the film title should be the same as the book title. WP:COMMONNAME for the film is The Hundred Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared, regardless of what the common name for the book is. — Film Fan 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COMMONNAME for the film is "The Hundred-Year-Old ..." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query can we consider the film the primary topic of both titles, instead of the novel? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've amended the proposal and my comments, as my original info was wrong. The key change is now the word "of". — Film Fan 22:19, 5 March 2016 (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 5 March 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus is apparent here. Work it out. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared (film) → The Hundred Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared (film) – Per WP:NCF, this is the WP:COMMONNAME in the majority of the English-speaking world (UK,[5] Canada,[6] Australia,[7] New Zealand,[8] etc.), while the US is the only country that uses the "100" spelling and also the only English-speaking country not to include the word "of" in the title. The current title of this Wikipedia article is a mash-up of the US title and the international title but isn't, in fact, either. — Film Fan 22:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm opposing because your nomination is incorrect. Which has already been pointed out to you, above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been pointed out anywhere, and the nomination is 100% correct. — Film Fan 16:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. And please stop with your WP:POINTY title changes within the article while this is live. Remind me of your past blocks for edit wars. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit wars are repeated reverts. Also, most of the changes were there weeks before the discussion even began so your edit is utter BS. Also, there was nothing WP:POINTY about my edit. English Wikipedia is for the whole English-speaking world. Also, you're lying. — Film Fan 17:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And in the English speaking world, the current title is the correct one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, almost... except that the word "of" is missing... — Film Fan 20:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...not true... — Film Fan 21:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh very true
Link one wiki (doesn't count)
Link 2 IMBD no hyphen
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hundred-Year-Old-Climbed-Window-Disappeared/dp/0349141800 Link 3 Amazon UK] hyphen
Link 4 Goodreads hyphen
[http://www.amazon.com/The-100-Year-Old-Climbed-Window-Disappeared/dp/1401324649 Link 5 Amazon.com] hyphen
Link 6 The Telegraph hyphen
Link 7 Studiocanal UK Youtube Hyphen
Link 8 Waterstones Hyphen
Link 9 Barens and Noble Hyphen
Link 10 Musicbox Films Hyphen
Page one done do I need to continue? or do you believe it is true yet? Murry1975 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, YES, you need to continue much further than that -- page one of Google is no way to judge anything. Secondly, you don't seem to know what reliable sources are. Thirdly, you don't seem to realise that half of those links are about the BOOK, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Fourthly, you don't seem to have even read my nomination, Murry1975. — Film Fan 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the English-speaking world this film is associated with the British film industry, and so should use the UK English title. Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is the Swedish film, not British. Also, the scrapping of the first hyphen (-) between "Hundred" and "Year" looks confusing; it made the title look as if there are one hundred "year-old" men, not man. Let's abide to US spelling... to make sense, not to Stop Making Sense. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my nomination? A) The current article title is not the US title. B) My proposal is for the title to move to the international title (all English-speaking countries besides the US). C) You appear to be voting on hyphens based on personal preference, rather than what is correct. With all that considered, why should your vote be taken seriously? — Film Fan 11:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still sticking to my vote. However, I struck out my rationale for the newer rationale. The posters do not mean anything other than just... stylization of spelling and structuring the words. What about secondary sources: Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald, Twitch Film, Twin Cities, South China Morning Post, The Georgia Straight, Japan Times, The Times, Kamera? I see some use of hyphens as spelled correctly by these sources. Some scrap out hyphens; some use "100". I'll go for what secondary sources say. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More: The National (UAE), Canada.com, National Post (Canada), The Guardian, The Scotsman. George Ho (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2016 (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 21 April 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move (non-admin closure). — SSTflyer 10:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared (film) → The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared (film) – OK, I'm aware this is the third move request in as many months, but as the previous move closed as no consensus, I don't think it's out of line to try again for a better consensus title. I'm not proposing to change the hyphens or Hundred -> 100 this time, only to add the word "of". This is a Swedish-British film, and per WP:TIES, it should use the British English title, which is "The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared", as shown in any number of British English sources. For example the Telegraph source mentioned by George Ho above.[9]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pinging all previous participants in move requests so they know there's a new request. @Randy Kryn: @Lugnuts: @Old Naval Rooftops: @70.51.46.39: @Murry1975: @Andrewa: @George Ho: @Film Fan:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How exactly is a vote of 4-2 for a move not consensus? The article should have been moved. — Film Fan 16:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for not reverting my close of that 4-3 !vote discussion before this new one started up. I recommend making a very clear table of what titles are used in what regions and what sources. The discussion above was very hard for an outside editor to see much sense in, so it got few opinions and even a reverted rationale. This can be worked out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4-2 is not a consensus in anyone's eyes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there were 3 opposing, not 2. Clearly no consensus was achieved there. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to be clear, vote counting is never sufficient for determining consensus (although it plays a part, certainly). The strength of arguments and whether they are based on policy or guidelines is also important. This was a very borderline case, and I think calling it no consensus was fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three oppose votes were completely nonsensical (one referring mainly to the book, the other just trying to wind me up the way he always does), so if the closer had read the votes and replies they would have seen the clear consensus. — Film Fan 22:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know that WP:NOTAVOTE is no longer a guideline but an essay, Amakuru, right? George Ho (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion. WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, though the hyphen still shouldn't be there. — Film Fan 17:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per multiple examples. It is shown as both, even by Studio Canal (both examples above). WP:ENGVAR? Sweden, France and Germany are not ENGVAR types, as per WP:RETAIN. Murry1975 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR because because the film has UK ties, and COMMONNAME/NCF because every country bar the US used the word "of" in the title. — Film Fan 20:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the of is used by the producing studio (Studio Canal) in examples given above. Murry1975 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Thank goodness the hyphen hoopla is not debated this time. Adding "of" isn't that bad. Variety, Contact Music, SCMP, Entertainment Focus use "of". Unsure about Today (Singapore). However, some other sources do not use "of". Also, I don't see hints of UK connections. The studios aren't British; StudioCanal isn't British either but had British interests. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the original sources use "of". "Sorcerer's Stone" anyone? CannibalSnacks (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2016 (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.

Removal of AKAs from the lead?[edit]

Why removing valid AKAs from the lead? By doing such, all US visitors will assume the US title is the same as the one used in the article, which it is not. Why are we trying to hide information? I know you don't like the US, Lugnuts, but that doesn't mean the US title shouldn't be given on English Wikipedia. — Film Fan 09:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the personal attacks - I love the US. This isn't a US film though. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is that even a valid argument? If there was any sense to that logic, why wouldn't you apply it consistently? — Film Fan 11:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it had a very different name in the US, I would probably say include it. For example Shooting Dogs is known as "Beyond the Gates" in America, and we mention both titles in the lead. But when the film name is already very long, and the two names differ only by the presence/absence of "of", I'd tend to think it's unnecessary to list both titles in the lead. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really think one word different in a title is insignificant? — Film Fan 11:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant?[edit]

Why isn't the elephant mentioned? It appears to be the same elephant in Sweden and in Bali. Presumably, if so, then they flew an elephant from Sweden to Bali for the film. Is this what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koryushka (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hundred-Year-Old_Man_Who_Climbed_Out_of_the_Window_and_Disappeared_(film)&oldid=1207669344"