From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nordic cinema task force.
WikiProject Horror (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Norway (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

We need quotes and translations[edit]

This is a well-cited article about a significant Norwegian movie. However, as this appears in the English-language Wikipedia, translations must be provided for the Norwegian-language citations, as per WP:NOTENGLISH.

The entire cited article does not have to be translated, of course; only the pertinent segment that supports the cited claim. I would ask the editors who built this fine article to please contribute this necessary additional effort. Certainly, this is a worthy film deserving of the best article possible.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Unless you are trying to establish that texts written in Norwegian are inherently unreliable, such translations are not needed to make the statements verifiable. So it is reasonable to ignore such requests. I assume you didn't read the link you gave (it is unrelated). From time to time, monoglots try to add some such requirements to Wikipedia:Verifiability but they always get removed again at some point. The current version does not support your interpretation. (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


The discussion whether the remake page was closed and 'preserved' before I could even add my final thoughts in.

The last two posts of the discussion was:

--- I've created the User:Charlr6/Troll Hunter (2014 film) page. So the main page can be deleted now and until further important information is out I'll just edit the page myself on the page until its worthy to be making a proper page out of. --Charlr6 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • don't think it makes sense for you to have it in your userspace. if it's a main article then other people would not know where to find it, if they have something to add. not sure what else to do.Bouket (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

--- I'll reply here to what Bouket said. ---

The poster above me in the now archived discussion board suggested that I keep it in my user space. I said that when there is more information I will add it and tat when there is enough information over-all I will re-create the remake article. As the discussion was saying, there wasn't enough information for there to be a proper article. So if anyone was looking to go onto the remakes page, tough. There is no more important information than the little information given on the 'remake' part on here.

What the Hell is it with this page move?[edit]

The film is called "The Troll Hunter" and said exactly like that, it isn't at all called anywhere "TrollHunter". I am going to try and move it back to "The Troll Hunter". Not a single request for it to be moved and was a complete change to the page, would be more accept table of it was "Troll Hunter" with a space. I'm going to try and move it back. Please explain this move and any sources to where it has ever been classed as "TrollHunter"

And also the DVD and poster clearly says either "The Troll Hunter" or just "Troll Hunter". I have the film on Blu-Ray and it says on the packaging and on the actual film, thats the actual movie it says "Troll Hunter", with the space. Charlr6 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The title is "TrollHunter". I have the blu-ray, too. Plus every certifiable website (including the official site) has the title without a space or the "The". The prefered styling is actually "TROLLHUNTER", but when in lower case, it's to be spelled "TrollHunter". Jsigned (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever consider to discuss it before doing the move? As far as I can see the official site says
Even the new poster you put up (to fit your argument) says the same. And I think most people would take that newline as a space without a dash there. The Facebook site linked on that official website says «The Troll Hunter», however further down the text you see a «Trollhunter» here and there. On IMDB it lists both «Troll Hunter» and «Trollhunter» as alternative titles.
The official Norwegian title is «Trolljegeren». «Troll» = Troll. «Jeger...» = Hunter. «...en» = The. That is, «Jegeren» is the singular definite form of the substantive «Jeger». If this Norwegian word was not written as a compound word, then Norwegian writing rules would have given it a slightly different (and funny) meaning. English obviously is much laxer in these rules (English compound), thus all the variants, but to me it seems the most common way to write it in English is with a space. But if you use just «trollhunter» or «troll hunter» it loses the definite article that is in the Norwegian official title, and which point to The Hunter himself, not just some general hunter.
So should you stick with one of the titles from a distributor that obviously can't agree with themselves, and sometimes cut off the leading "the" to make the poster look better, or do you stick with the proper and direct translation of the Norwegian title that also is on some of the posters? -Laniala (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Laniala. I was about to move it myself and leave a message on here. But on the official Facebook page (US and UK) the film is called "The Troll Hunter" (on UK one doesn't have 'the'). See here and here. But I've been looking around the internet. This is the official YouTube page for the film here. But what's strange is that the films title has changed on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB from "The Troll Hunter" to "TrollHunter", so either its Jsigned re-naming them on those sites or there are other people who suddenly think the name of the film is called "TrollHunter".
I've actually checked the back of my Blu-Ray box, and it says clearly "Troll Hunter", with a space. And on the spine of the box where it has the title, it says "Troll" SPACE "Hunter". Charlr6 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong, but at the VERY LEAST the "The" has to go. It was called "The Troll Hunter" when it hit the festival circuit, and "TrollHunter" when it was properly released. The part of this that is NOT even debatable is the "The". Goodbye "The". Jsigned (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All you're saying is that one distributor chose to remove the leading "the" to make the posters and covers look prettier. It still botches the title, which in the Norwegian title points to Hans, The Troll Hunter/Troll-Hunter/TrollHunter/Trollhunter, and which you can still find several links to as being the title, just as you are able to find several links to the title without it, and you can also find variations on the same site.
And if what you say is true, then the director obviously chose the title "The Troll Hunter" for the initial screenings to an English audience. -Laniala (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again you Jsigned moved the page without discussing. But how is it the "The" is in your words "NOT even debatable" when it seems like none of it is debatable for you? I'm happy for the page just to be called "Troll Hunter", with the space and as it is at this current time, but you could have discussed more and asked what we thought if it was called "Troll Hunter", I would have been happy as thats also what appears on the DVD and Blu-Ray.
But can you find sources for how it was called "The Troll Hunter" for a festival? But the film is on DVD packaging called "Troll Hunter" with the space, in advertisements when it was being released in the UK late last year I saw "The" being in the title, but as it isn't really a necessary word most of the time I don't mind if the page is kept as "Troll Hunter", as long as you don't go and try changing it without discussing in the future. Charlr6 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And it seems you (Jsigned) are not even willing to "talk" unless the page's title is changed back. The article's title has been "The Troll Hunter" for over one and a half year without anyone even raising a question about it, then you come barging in, change it, and insist you are correct and the rest of us are wrong without even discussing it.

This and this seems to imply the title was "The Troll Hunter" until that distributor at some time chose to remove the initial "The" (to maybe better fit on the posters, who knows.) Rotten Tomatoes has this under foreign titles: "The Troll Hunter (DE)", "The Troll Hunter (UK)". The trailer on IMDB [1] has "The Troll Hunter" on the trailer page, but only shows "Troll Hunter" in the trailer itself. The Facebook pages has both "The Troll Hunter" and "Troll Hunter". The YouTube page only has "The Troll Hunter".

The film obviously is known, depending on what you use as your source, both as "The Troll Hunter" and "Troll Hunter". By your own little text it seems to imply the director's own preferred title is "The Troll Hunter". "The Troll Hunter" is also the direct translation of the official original Norwegian title "Trolljegeren". The only thing that says differently is the newest covers where "The" is removed, and your small tidbit as to why have not convinced (at least me) why the film should be known only as "Troll Hunter".

So maybe you should discuss why you so insistently want the title changed, and discuss it properly before doing the change. -Laniala (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


I've move-protected this page for two weeks so that you can all work out here on the talk page what is the best title for the page, without cluttering up the history with back-and-forth page moves. The protection will automatically expire at that time, but please make up your minds here and do not return to move-warring. You can open a formal requested move also, to get a more formal result for the discussion. If you decide on a different page title before the protection expires let me know and I can lift the protection. Franamax (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for either "The Troll Hunter" or just "Troll Hunter" Charlr6 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The move protection would be fine if it was locked on the correct title, which it is not. The title that was used for its festival release (THE Troll Hunter) can be listed as an AKA or whatever. The title used for its American and international release is TROLL HUNTER. THERE IS NO "THE". THIS IS THE PRIMARY TITLE. THIS IS THE TITLE THAT COUNTS.

Or should "Our Idiot Brother" be changed back to "My Idiot Brother" and "A Separation" back to "Nader and Simin"? Jsigned (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The film was classed as "The Troll Hunter" for over a year and no one complained until you came along! I find it funny how you mention that the film is actually called "Troll Hunter" now, instead of "TrollHunter", changing your mind again? Charlr6 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* The irony in this article describing trolls. Anyway, do you have any convincing arguments or proof for this being the primary title besides the most recent cover of the BlueRay? -Laniala (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. I feel like I'm talking to kids. You don't know what blu-ray is. You don't know the difference between a festival release and a theatrical release. Indeed, there should be no space, but losing the THE is more important. I'm not wasting more time on this. It's ridiculous and I have better things to do. Who woulda thought such a simple title correction would be so difficult? The only thing in favor of your argument is the Facebook page (created before the theatrical release title had been finalized), and everything else (INCLUDING EVERY FILM WEBSITE) is at least halfway correct listing it as "Troll Hunter", while IMDb, Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes (among others) correctly list it as "TrollHunter". Either way, THERE IS NO "THE". But I'm sure you you know best, Laniala, so you hold on to it, for all the people that love incorrect titles. Jsigned (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the other websites about Troll Hunter have had the name changed all of a sudden, must have been at least in the past two weeks, maybe less. Before and over a year Wikipedia and every other big site had the movie called "The Troll Hunter". And yes, we have no idea what this Blu-Ray technology is, care to explain it to us? I'm for loosing the 'THE', I'm fine for that.
And on the Blu-Ray and DVD, and even recent posters, the film has been called "Troll Hunter", do not make me get a ruler and have a look at great detail at the Blu-Ray case.
And on the official website I don't see it classed as "TrollHunter", it has "Troll" SPACE "Hunter".
All of the sites, including Wikipedia had the name of the film to either "The Troll Hunter" or "Troll Hunter", and in the past week they've all suddenly strangely changed to "TrollHunter". Which is strange indeed. Charlr6 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is acting like a kid it is you (Jsigned). You are the one that were not willing to talk until the page got move protected. You are the one that are so convinced you are so right that you apparently haven't even looked at what we wrote. If you had read what we wrote we gave links that explained that the very same sites you now (finally) decide to list also have the name as "The Troll Hunter" further down the text, but it is now no longer in the headline. We also did write that the same sites have "Troll Hunter" as a title, but very few had "TrollHunter". And I suspect many of those sites (at least IMDB is) for the most part also is user contributed so anyone that bothers to can make edits – On IMDB it's available through IMDBPro, which is available as free trial, and extended by paying them money. And no, not every film site has it as "Troll Hunter". It's maybe 50-50 from my rough and quick web-search, but that is nowhere correct as many sites have several pages for the film, and often mixes the titles on the same page.

If you had wanted this move to go more "smoothly" you should have, after you got reverted the first time, and especially taken the hint after the second and third revert, maybe have taken the time to explain for us "kids" not only why you (still) believe the correct title is "TrollHunter", but also provided some convincing arguments or proof for it. Instead you just kept on saying simply we are wrong and moved it back to what you are convinced is correct. Besides, «TrollHunter» looks like a remnant from the Norwegian title where it is all written in one word to avoid funny meanings (like f.ex. «troll (as verb) the hunter» if it gets split in two). So why do you want to keep that part, but not the other «The» part which also would be a remnant from the Norwegian title?

You keep on repeating the claim that the film was known as "The Troll Hunter" only during the festival release (which btw was for a fairly long period of time at different parts of the US and UK), but since you're the one that want the page moved, do you actually have anything to back up the claim that it magically stopped being called "The Troll Hunter" after that period of time?

As far as I can figure out the film itself says "Trolljegeren" at the end credits, regardless of release. The main(?) English distributor (of the DVD/Blu-ray) has written "Trollhunter" on their web site once. "Troll Hunter" is shown as a banner and in their trailer. "The Troll Hunter" is written as text twice. So I think this blogger sums it up pretty good: «I really dig TROLLHUNTER, or TROLL HUNTER, or THE TROLL HUNTER, or whatever the preferred translation of TROLLJEGEREN is this week.» All these alternative titles redirect to the current article name. (At least they do now.)
I'm not totally against having the title changed, but I really would like some more mature, and more convincing arguments and proof than «I'm correct. You're wrong. You're kids and don't know anything» before a change that does botch the original Norwegian title, and might end up being changed again if for some reason a new Poster/DVD/Bluray by a different (or the same) distributor comes along. -Laniala (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at this here. On Google Translate (yes not the best translation but works for a few worded things) if you type "Trolljegeren" and put it as the Norwegian language and translate it to English, the title is "The Troll hunter". I don't see them in Norway changing the title at all. It's a straight translation. Charlr6 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you people serious? What relevance does the literal translation of the Norwegian title have? Should we take the "AND" out of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" because the original Italian title doesn't have an "AND"? I'm past the point of being mature. I'm wasting time trying to nurse your ignorance. There isn't necessarily a "THE" in the literal translation of "Trolljegeren" anyway, but, as I mentioned, that's a whole different, irrelevant argument.

The film was called "The Troll Hunter" for its festival release. For its theatrical release and all subsequent releases, your good friend "THE" was removed. I'm not gonna trawl the web for proof. But there is a good reason all the websites I listed have no "THE". Point me to a site that uses the title "The Troll Hunter," and then explain to me how this site your found has more accreditation than IMDb, Flixster, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and the rest of the internet. Come on.

There is nothing more to discuss. I am growing weary. Fix it. Move on. Smile. Be happy. And for God's sake learn something about film festivals and theatrical releases. Jsigned (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way: At this point I would just like to make it clear that I no longer give a crap about whether or not there is a space between the words, because I see how there is debate there. That's not what's driving me mad. It's your love for the word "THE" that bewilders me. Jsigned (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I said two or three times I'm happy for it to go without the word 'THE'. And I only mentioned the Google Translate as its barely a source you could rely on for a newer English title just like we can barely rely on you until you give us any sources. We are growing weary of how you kept on changing it without discussion. And like I said, only recently the big sites have had the name changed. Two plus weeks ago the films title on those sites was "The Troll Hunter" or "Troll Hunter", and then all of a sudden "TrollHunter". IMDB can't count, as registered users can go onto the site and try and edit the page.
"There is nothing more to discuss"? Was there ever anything you were discussing with us? No.
So for God's sake learn something about Wikipedia and hints.
You were never mature at all on this, so you were always past the point as you never discussed anything. And until you find sources to back your arguments up, then this is an irrelevant argument because you are making it irrelevant. Charlr6 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"And like I said, only recently the big sites have had the name changed." That is a flat-out lie, Charlr6. If Summer 2011 was a couple of weeks ago then I just learnt something new... not that is has any relevance, anyway.

I have shown you the proof. Now, can you people (mainly Laniala) come up with any counter-evidence or just plain logical reasoning against the deletion of your favorite "THE"? You have provided none thus far (because there IS none), but I will let you answer, anyway... Jsigned (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Summer 2011"? Two plus weeks ago I looked up Troll Hunter, and I KNOW that Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, etc had the film called either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter". So either you are lying or UNLESS some reason in my area (as I have looked it up on different computers with a different internet connection) the sites names hadn't updated for some strange reason and took about six months to do so. But two plus weeks ago, the site names were defiantly either "The Troll Hunter" or "Troll Hunter", not "TrollHunter". If they had been "TrollHunter" since Summer, then I probably would have changed Wikipedia's page name months ago. Charlr6 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Summer 2011. I'd also have corrected this Wikipedia page back then but I didn't use Wikipedia when looking up films till recently/wasn't interested in contributing. But what we would or wouldn't have done is yet another irrelevant conversation. Can we just get rid of the pesky "THE" and move on, please. Jsigned (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I would have changed the name then, but it isn't until the past week that the sites have had the name "TrollHunter" for me, so like I said, it could have been some late update in my area, because from Summer 2011 to two weeks ago the film was called either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter".
But also like what I said before, I'm happy with or without the "THE". Charlr6 (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. We good to go, Laniala? Jsigned (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your only "proof" is the newest poster (which you keep on adding in on the main page even though this discussion is not over – you just can't wait for a discussion, can you? besides the newest poster cuts off the troll's head), but as mentioned, even though this is the newest poster from the distributor, they still use both "Troll Hunter", "TrollHunter" and "The Troll Hunter" on their own web pages.
You have not yet given any other proof. All you have given are a lot of claims, but not a single proof or convincing argument for any of them. You have not given a proof that the film has stopped being called «The Troll Hunter». You have not given a proof from a reliable source (which does not include film sites anyone can edit – and many of them did have it as "The Troll Hunter" when I checked them a month ago when I was adding my chunk to the article at that time) that the film's official name now is "Troll Hunter", or as you prefer "TrollHunter". You have not yet explained why the "The" is, as you put it, so "pesky".
Actually, so far we have given more (dubious) links than you as to why it might be called "Troll Hunter" rather than "The Troll Hunter". You are the one that want the page changed. We should not have to do the work for you and dig up proof that support or contradict your claims when you have not bothered to give any supporting proof for them.
Until you actually can give any proof that the film is no longer called "The Troll Hunter", and that "Troll Hunter" is now the official and most common name in use ([2][3] – and here I would actually have expected the last link to be much greater than the first because the latter is a subset of the first), my preference is leaning towards the direct translation of the original title. I have already written my reasons for that preference above, but it's because to me that implies the film is about Hans, The Troll Hunter. Not some general hunter. And because that is a direct translation of the title used in the end credits of the film. But as I also have written several times, if you can show proof to the contrary and explain why the "The" is so pesky, I'll grumble at the botched title and leave it be. -Laniala (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave my proof. I presented you with multiple sources of evidence, and you presented us with no counter-evidence. The literal translation is irrelevant in this argument. Your personal preference is also irrelevant. My opinion is that it looks and sounds better without the "THE", but that's not my argument against it. You cannot prevent this title being corrected just because you don't particularly like the name its worldwide distributors chose for it, or because you're unhappy it's not quite the literal translation. Should "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" be called "Men Who Hate Women" just because that's the literal translation? Personally, I think the distributors should have gone with the literal translation there, but they didn't, and there's nothing I can do about it. I'm sorry, Laniala, but you are wasting everyone's time. Jsigned (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you have not given any proof beyond what exists in your own head. You have however made a bunch of claims, but not bothered to prove them. Every single edit and edit comment you have made so far has shown total lack of willingness to listen and to read. If anyone is wasting everybody's time it is you. -Laniala (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You are right Laniala, he/she hasn't given any actual proper helpful links to anywhere to back up their argument.
And Jsigned, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was called that instead of Men Who Hate Women, just because they didn't think people would buy the book or see the movie with a title of "Men Who Hate Women". The literal translation though of Trolljegeren is "The Troll Hunter", not some completely re-named title like what they did with Men Who Hate Women. Charlr6 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The literal translation is irrelevant. Jsigned (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? Because the literal translation according to you was only used for festival release, but for future theatrical and home video it is called "Troll Hunter". Charlr6 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Correct. Jsigned (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
So then it is relevant isn't it? Because you started mentioning that it was called "The Troll Hunter" for festival releases, and thats the literal translation. Charlr6 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


I've now full-protected the article for 2 weeks to quell the edit-warring and reverted it to the 1 April version before this nastiness started. Agree on your desired changes here and request them using the {{editprotected}} template. Hint: "liar liar pants on fire" is not a valid edit request. If I see more incivility and personal attacks on other editors here, I will proceed to remove individual editors from the discussion via blocks. Franamax (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think one or two of these would have been enough proof. But I have listed 13, to enlighten one and all of how all the film sites of any consequence show that there is no "the" in the title. These websites call it either "Troll Hunter", "TROLLHUNTER" "TrollHunter" or "Trollhunter". The "the" was removed sometime between Sundance and the theatrical release. We can debate all day about which of those four titles is the consensus title, but there is no debate about the "The".

Official website: IMDb: Trailer: Rotten Tomatoes: Yahoo: Apple: Netflix: Amazon: Box Office Mojo: Total Fanhub: Fandango: Magnolia (distributor): Moviefone:

The end. Jsigned (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, for me two plus weeks ago, all of those websites for me had the film called either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter", but according to you they have been like that since Summer 2011. So like I have said, in my area for some reason the websites could have only recently updated the names, but before two weeks ago, in my area they were called either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter".
But like I said several times, I am in favour for the film to be called it either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter". If I was to personally choose, in my opinion I would prefer "Troll Hunter".
I don't really see any "incivility and personal attacks" going on here so the threat to block isn't necessary as well I personally haven't been uncivil or giving any personal attacks on here. Charlr6 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I see that you (Jsigned) replaced/wrote over the poster picture since you no longer can edit the page itself. Why can't you take a hint? Why can't you leave stuff in the state it was when the discussion first started, but have to keep on editing every possible place that isn't moderator locked?
And it also seems you didn't read the part about reliable sources that was mentioned in the discussion way up there: User contributed sites, which most/all of those film sites are, are not considered reliable sources.
The most reliable of the sources you listed are the official site (first link) belonging to the distributor one (next to last), and we already did list that one in the "discussion" way up there. We/I already did mention that that is the page of one distributor, that can't agree with themselves as they write "TrollHunter", "Troll Hunter", and "The Troll Hunter" in varying degree on the same page or in the same text document. And that the sites selling the DVD/Bluray will list it as what the cover says is really no surprise.
Like we mentioned earlier, in the "discussion" way up there, we did say that the film is known as "Troll Hunter", "TrollHunter", or "The Troll Hunter" depending on what you use as source. And that the very same source often mixes it on the same page. Even a couple of the links you provided do that, two lines or two paragraphs further down.
You want the title changed because you are claiming the film is no longer called "The Troll Hunter" anywhere and because you find the use of "The" pesky, but then why is it still selling as that on Amazon Canada ?
Some of the various dvd covers that exists: [4]
And using the same type of dubious links as you, a film site that hasn't had the title changed the last months [5] (wonder how long that lasts now that it is linked...)
Number of times it has been on festivals: [6]
Announcement of possible Bafta nomination: [7] [8]
Another distributor: [9]
Interviews with the director: [10][11]
Another place to view the film [12]
The distributor's Facebook page: [13], and official Youtube Page [14].
Google comparison between the use of "Troll Hunter" [15] and "The Troll Hunter" [16] (first link includes both "the troll hunter" and "trollhunter", so how do you measure the use when it is such a common word as "the"?)
As said so many times, the title varies with the source, and very often on the same page. Your poster is the newest, and the most flashy, but only one of many that exists. But you still insist that is the one and only correct title, and that "The Troll Hunter" is no longer a valid name and no longer in use anywhere. With the lack of real proof you have come with so far, I think the only reason for me to accept your title is to put an end this discussion. -Laniala (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You found something I was unaware of: that in Canada they do indeed call it "The Troll Hunter". But in the rest of the English-speaking world it is called "Troll Hunter" or "TrollHunter". So when the article is corrected, you can put right in the first sentence of the article that the Canadian title is "The Troll Hunter".
Regarding my 13 sources: They are all reliable. One or two of them (IMDb) may be user-contributed, but all those other sites that are not user-contributed also have the correct name. Film Fan (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1[edit]

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: page moved to Trollhunter; the "The" needed to be dropped for the English title per usage; the sources given (plus the New York Times review that came up in the first page of my search) mostly use a single word. CamelCase TrollHunter vs. standard Trollhunter was less clear, so opted for standard casing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Troll HunterTroll Hunter – The following reliable sources all confirm this title correction: Official website: IMDb: Trailer: Rotten Tomatoes: Yahoo: Apple: Netflix: Amazon: Box Office Mojo: Total Fanhub: Fandango: Magnolia (distributor): Moviefone: Jsigned (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine for the move now from "The Troll Hunter" to "Troll Hunter" (as you know). And I'll say a final time that for me two plus weeks ago, the movie on those sites were called either "The Troll Hunter" or "Troll Hunter", and could have only just been updated in my area for some unknown reason, and I'm happy to accept it as a late update. But I'm for the name change now, I have been for some time now. Charlr6 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Looking at the sources and the film poster, it seems clear to me that "The" is not part of the title. Jenks24 (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to Oppose. Reason being WP:TITLEFORMAT that makes an exception for proper names and points to WP:THE which says «[...] definite and indefinite articles should be used [...] [in] titles of works and publications.». WP:THE also mentions translated titles, and Norwegian has indefinite/definite articles, so the exception part in WP:THE does not apply. And since this is a film, not a painting, the guideline for visual works of art should in my opinion not apply. «The Troll Hunter» (or «The Trollhunter») is not a complete rewrite of the original title, but merely a translation of «Trolljegeren», so the examples of total rewrites of foreign titles should not be relevant.
As mentioned there's a quite lengthy discussion above (and now also below). The spelling of the film's title varies depending on the source, of often within the same source. The links provided by Jsigned/Film Fan (some dubious per WP:RS) mostly support the spelling «Trollhunter», some «Troll Hunter». If you look away from the headline/lead you will also see «The Troll Hunter». Copying some of my reply links from the discussion above: Amazon Canada Various covers Another film/movie site Number of festivals Possible BAFTA nomination 1 Possible BAFTA nomination 2 Another distributor Another place to view the film One distributor's Facebook page Official Youtube Page (again some dubious per WP:RS, contains various spellings, but mainly «The Troll Hunter» in the title/lead). -Laniala (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment/questions There's quite a lengthy "discussion" right above this move request. But to sum it up: The way the film's title is spelled varies depending on the source, and often within the very same source: «TrollHunter», «Troll Hunter», or «The Troll Hunter». (Some links showing this inconsistency are mentioned in the reply above Talk:The Troll Hunter#Edit-protected, and all the alternative titles redirects to the current title.) So in my opinion I think the question is what is considered reliable sources in this case? And what do you do when the different distributors, newspapers, reviewers, bloggers, movie sites, etc are not consistent in their own spelling? Do you pick the spelling used in the newest poster/cover? Every time it comes a new poster/dvd/bluray [17], or only once in a while when someone updates it here on Wikipedia? How do you pick the correct poster? Or do you maybe use the title which is most commonly in use, and how do you measure this when it is such a common word as "the"? Maybe the direct/literal translation of the Norwegian title «Trolljegeren»? WP:THE and WP:TITLEFORMAT have some guidelines, but can be interpreted both ways. What is the criteria to choose the correct spelling? -Laniala (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading through the mentioned guideline for definite/indefinite articles again it makes the general rule: «If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.»
A few lines further down it makes more specific rules and says «[...] definite and indefinite articles should be used [...] [in] titles of works and publications.»
So listing some of the examples mentioned in WP:THE and adding some of my own: Would you say
«Old Man and [the] Sea» or «The Old Man and the Sea»?
«Bridge over [the] River Kwai» or «The Bridge over the River Kwai»?
«Matrix» or «The Matrix»?
«Gladiator» or «The Gladiator»?
«Exorsist» or «The Exorsist»?
«Pianist» or «The Pianist»?
«Deer Hunter» or «The Deer Hunter»?
«Seven Samurai» or «The Seven Samurai»? (Shichinin no Samurai – Japanese title does not specify)
«Good, [the] Bad, [and] [the] Ugly» or «The Good, the Bad, [and] the Ugly»? (Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo)
«Miserable» or «The Miserable» (Les misérables)?
«Magic Flute» or «The Magic Flute»? (Die Zauberflöte)
«Boat» or «The Boat»? (Das Boot)
«Little Mermaid» or «The little Mermaid»? (Den lille havfrue)
«Scream» or «The Scream»? (Skrik – Norwegian title does not specify)
«Doll's House» or «A Doll's House»? (Et dukkehjem)
Several of these books/films have the article omitted, and several have the article included. The list start with original English titles, and end with foreign translated titles.
Question: Does WP:THE say anything that could be applied to this Troll film? Is there somehow a red line to follow? (If no, then this was all mindless rambling.) If yes, which guideline is weighting the most? The WP:THE guideline, or following the spelling on the latest, and one of many, DVD-covers/posters?
As mentioned in the long discussion above, as far as I am aware all versions of the full film writes «Trolljegeren» in the end credits. Although the translated end credits in trailers and and posters/covers vary a lot depending on which version you're looking at. -Laniala (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Where is the relevance of all these examples? I see none whatsoever. At the end of the day it comes down to this: The titles used in the film and on the DVD/blu-rays, posters, etc. are the titles that are used in running text, which are thus in the following countries:
US, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, French Canada, Finland, etc. = TrollHunter
UK, Aus = Troll Hunter
Canada = The Troll Hunter
There is no disputing the fact that Mr "THE" is vastly outnumbered. Film Fan (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That there might be no red line to draw a conclusion from the examples I can understand. But that you think it is completely irrelevant does in my opinion say more about you and your infallible belief, from the very first edit, that you can't possibly be wrong, and your total disregard for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Not to mention the most important one: actually backing up your claims with reliable sources when someone like me does not straight out believe your claims. Your very first and incessant claim was that the film is not called "The Troll Hunter" anywhere. You have since moderated this claim to nowhere else than Canada, but you still do not look at any of the countering links that have been provided, and just keep repeating the same tune. I can claim the moon is a green cheese, and put up lots of pictures and links saying so. That I claim the moon is a green cheese does not make this true just because I keep repeating the very same claims to anyone that dare say anything else, regardless of what they might show to put this into doubt.
And just for information, as you had already counted me as opposing, I might as well change my vote to that, since after reading closer I do believe the WP:THE guideline straight out says the usual way to name «titles of works and publications» is "The" if it is «part of the title of the work», and the guideline even mentions translated titles. And I think this guideline weights heavier than what the different DVD-covers in the different regions say, especially when there are a lot of different variants [18], a new variant can come at any time, and the official sites uses a lot of different spellings.
But to cater your beliefs, I'm curious as to how you divided the different countries into the different spellings. That is, if you would be so kind as to share the premises for that result, and not just the final result itself. But to be honest I don't care what you do from now on, as long as you don't edit my comments. I have now made my vote. Time will tell what happens, but the title can be moved to «Hunting the Mountain King» for all I care. -Laniala (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is my proof that TROLLHUNTER is called TROLLHUNTER in (at least) the following countries: (HINT: LOOK AT THE SPINES)
French Canada:
Also, I'd like to mention again that my many other sources were reliable, and that, in fact, you gave no counterevidence (because there isn't any). And if all the many links I have provided for you, Laniala, still somehow baffle you, then refer to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions article you mentioned above, where the only vaguely relevant section says this: "The rule of thumb regarding these translated titles of works is, If there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia page name with an article."
You have voted incorrectly. Film Fan (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
1) Why should I even waste the time trying to disprove you when you don't even bother to backup your claims. If I say the moon is a green cheese, would you first say I don't believe you, can you prove it? Or would you start looking for counter-proof? (And just to clarify, I'm NOT saying that I actually can disprove you, I'm just saying that so far I have not believed the "evidence" for your claims.)
2) And I already answered you way up there why I don't trust your links to be unconditional proof for what you are claiming. Way up there I did provide links that do show that the film is not unconditionally called "Troll Hunter" or "TrollHunter" all over in the UK/US. If you claim your links are reliable, then so were those links. So maybe you should stop accusing me of being blind in the edit comments.
3) Why are you even dragging in all these foreign languages into this? Are you going to go over to the other language Wikipedias and demand they change their titles too? You didn't answer what I actually wondered, and I can only blame myself for not specifying that when we're on the English WP: The background material you based the placement of the different English titles.
4) Your quote cut off the first part of the sentence in WP:THE: «There are several languages (like Latin) that do not have a definite article, giving no guidance whether an article would be part of a title. This often leads to alternative translations, with some translators using a definite article for the English version of the title and others not. The rule of thumb regarding these (note the word these referring back to the previous sentences) translated titles of works is, if there is the least bit of ambiguity whether the article is always used in a translation of the title, it is preferred not to start the Wikipedia page name with an article»
5) That you think there is such thing as an incorrect vote appals me. Since you obviously don't count this as voting at all, I'm wondering what you actually think this is, except a waste of time. -Laniala (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Your vote is incorrect because I have proven you wrong, Laniala. TROLLHUNTER is the most-used title in the English-speaking world, and even in various non-English-speaking countries, as my following sources show:
DVD/blu-ray covers:
French Canada:
Film websites:
Official website:
Rotten Tomatoes:
Box Office Mojo:
Magnolia (distributor):
No one can deny that these are reliable sources. IMDb and Amazon are the only ones that are partially user-contributed. The others are not. Stop wasting my time. Film Fan (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess the circle is complete and we're back at the start. Since I have already commented on your links way up there where you first posted them I'm not going to do so again. You have also received comments further below on those links. I do however want to add a comment. What does France, French Canada, Spain, Finland, Germany, and Italy have to do with English speaking world? -Laniala (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
And not that I have much hope you will listen since I brought this up already in the "discussion" way up there and several times since, but how exactly have you proven me wrong?
Are you even aware of what you are claiming yourself? You are claiming something akin to stars everywhere in the universe are yellow, or shortened to every star is yellow, just because the Sun is, since that is the most visible. Then you start to add one exception when it gets pointed out one star is white (since that is the only counter proof you have accepted). So would you be adding another exception for red stars? (For Newspapers saying otherwise?) And another exception for blue stars? (For Movie/Film sites saying otherwise?) And so on and so on? (Distributors/Trailers/Bloggers/Your own links saying otherwise?) How many exceptions do you need before the word "everywhere" and your claim about "everywhere except ..." fails?
All you have proven is that the most sold DVD/Blu-ray at the moment says «TrollHunter» OR «Troll Hunter» on the front cover. Online shops selling this DVD/Blu-ray will obviously list it as what the front cover says. User contributed sites will also eventually have someone change the title to this. Because do you really think there is an editorial staff that verify each and every edit? And even if they had someone that overlooked the edit, without guidelines, such as Wikipedia has with WP:THE to avoid fluctuating back and forth between two titles, why would they not accept the title when it says almost the same? (But not the same.)
You have also proven that the spelling of the film varies a lot, even among your own links. And you have proven that any web searches for the text "troll hunter", "trollhunter" and "the troll hunter" and "the trollhunter" will be heavily influenced by the results from non-English speaking countries. So again, how exactly have you proven me wrong when I just point out flaws in your "evidence"? Why exactly should I trust your "evidence" when you only accept one type yourself: DVD/Blu-ray covers that are currently for sale. How exactly is the film called "Troll Hunter" everywhere (except Canada)? How exactly should such a varying spelling of the title from the sources, and in the very same sources, overrule the WP:THE? -Laniala (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact that the film is called TROLLHUNTER in many non-English-speaking countries AS WELL AS the English-speaking countries (aside from Canada), adds even more weight. THIS IS THE INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS TITLE AND THERE IS NO POINT TRYING TO DISPUTE THAT ANYMORE. THERE IS NOTHING TO DISPUTE. IT'S PROVEN. MOVE ON. Film Fan (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to move on. You have already stated you're not willing to discuss this, something you stated already in your second edit, but you just keep spouting out stuff that are too horrifying to leave unanswered. -Laniala (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not wasting any more time on this, or you, because I have much better things to do with my life. I'm guessing the title will remain incorrect, unless someone else somehow finds it in them to read through the endless nonsense that pollutes this page. TROLLHUNTER is the consensus title in the world we live in, but I care less about that with every moment that passes. I don't mean to insult you, but you are seriously blind. I hope we never meet again. Goodbye. Film Fan (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect depends on the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are there to help with arguing like this. And just to make it clear, you are requesting this article to be moved to «Troll Hunter» even though you are convinced beyond doubt the correct spelling is «Trollhunter», just because that is what had the least arguing resistance from other people, and you don't want a pesky (as you called it yourself way up there) «The» at the beginning.
And you might not have insulted us and me directly in plain writing, but you sure have been trying your best to imply so in your text and edit comments, that we are kids, don't know anything, and are blind. If you don't intend it as an insult then you won't mind if I say the same about you, because seriously, you are actually accusing me of ignoring and not looking at your "evidence" when you are not looking at it yourself and when you are not looking at what we provide you. I do agree to one thing though, I hope we never meet again. -Laniala (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

All of my sources are reliable. I gave 13 and only one or two of them are user contributed as far as I'm aware. None of these sources use a "The" in the title. I could not find a single film site that used "The Troll Hunter" as the title. The inconsistency comes only with the space between "Troll" and "Hunter". This is conclusive, Laniala.

P.S. Even Charlr6 has seen the light. And Jenks24 has cast his vote too. 3-1. Feels like consensus to me. Film Fan (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My full response was and is in the lengthy discussion above, since that is where you first put your links. Please read my response there. But what does WP:RS, and in particular Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources say?
And if you notice, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not write I object to the change, nor did I support the change yet. I was asking some questions and currently waiting for input from more people. But you can't even leave that alone, and actually answer the questions properly. I'm surprised you didn't write 3-0. (And why are you changing your signature/username to make it look like someone else?) -Laniala (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I changed my username to reflect what I am, and it is completely irrelevant. So many irrelevant things on this talk page. I'm not here to spend time chit-chatting. I'm here to correct the page and move on. Film Fan (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Procedural question Why is the requested target "Troll Hunter"? Except for the Fanhub link, none of the sources cited in support of the request appear to actually contain "Troll Hunter" as the name of the film. There are mostly variants of TrollHunter / Trollhunter and very rarely "The Troll Hunter" (as at B.O. Mojo) but not two words with a space between. The credit screen in the trailer(s) have no space either. There seems little point in requesting a move to a different, yet still incorrect, title. Franamax (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Even though it shouldn't be used and probably won't be used as a great source, as the DVD and Blu-Ray say "Troll Hunter" on the case (note the 'space') then I think we could strongly use that as a case, because the people who run the website, even though official it can't be reliable most of the time, the DVD and Blu-Ray however, the film maker would have checked up on them and chosen some designs as these would be designs that are all over the world. But like I said it can't and probably won't be used as a great source for the true title, but websites like Rotten Tomatoes or whatever, the pages for the film on those websites aren't created by the film maker, but by some person on the website, just like someone who would edit a page in a newspaper. I hope you get what I'm saying, I don't feel like I've said it that well, hopefully I've said it well enough. Charlr6 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I think "TrollHunter" is used more than "Troll Hunter", but there was a bigger backlash against the spaceless version when I suggested it. But yes, I would absolutely support changing it to TrollHunter (as I originally did, before I realized I had to write daily essays for weeks to try and backup my claim). By the way, the Box Office Mojo title is "Trollhunter", which is what the IMDb title was sometime last year, before the H was capitalized (BO Mojo and IMDb are connected). Film Fan (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Like I said before, for me, for some reason the sites could have only just recently updated the movies name in my area. But those sites and the films page on those sites aren't run by the film makers. The DVD and Blu-Ray however has "Troll Hunter" on it, and that is clear proof, not just something some person who had no involvement in the films production made, such as IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. I saw an article yesterday on Rotten Tomatoes about Clint Eastwood's films, and when talking about Changeling, they called it "The Changeling", which it isn't, there is a film a couple of decades ago with that title, Clint Eastwoods film is just called "Changeling", so you can't really trust those sites as they aren't made by one of the film makers, the DVD and Blu-Ray however are much more connected, so I believe it should reflect that.
The "Troll Hunter" poster has the films title not next to each other, but "Troll" above, and "Hunter" below. Other film posters have done this, such as Casino Royale, but I wouldn't class it as "CasinoRoyale". I know on the webisites though they actually write the films title like "Casino Royale".
On Amazon the film is called Troll Hunter, because it reflects the DVD release, and if anything the DVD and Blu-Ray release, as the title is "Troll Hunter", it is much more reliable than websites that have no connection to the films production. So we should reflect that, not copy what other sites do, even though most of them apparently class it as "TrollHunter", they are all copying each other.
If the film was called "TrollHunter", the DVD and Blu-Ray would have the title like that. Charlr6 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Here's some more clarification. The US DVD/Blu-ray says "TROLLHUNTER". Check the spine here:
The UK DVD/Blu-ray says "TROLL HUNTER". Check the spine here:
I suspect this is why Charlr6 is for the space (being British). Anyway, from this I conclude the US title has no space, while the UK title does. And, though I hate to say it, for a film that is not British, the American title is going to be used more than the British one.
US = TrollHunter
UK = Troll Hunter
Canada = The Troll Hunter
In conclusion, I believe the Wikipedia article should be named "TrollHunter", with the UK and Canadian titles being highlighted in the first sentence. Do we all agree? Does anyone somehow dispute this? Film Fan (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You are right about the American title to be used more. Although the film is neither British or American, its Norwegian, but we won't obviously use the original title. That would be used on the Norwegian Wiki.
But yes I agree. That's fine. I would say just go ahead and make the move now. Charlr6 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What happens now then? Do we just wait for the week to finish or are we waiting for more input? Film Fan (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the proposal back to the original request. Once other editors have commented on a proposal, you can't just go back and change the proposal to something different. The request will stay open at least a week and any interested editor may comment during that time. It will then stay open until an uninvolved editor reads the discussion and closes it. Franamax (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Support) – First off I would like to point out that the debate about the "offical name" is not particularly relevant. The policy that should be applied is WP:COMMONNAME which states Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. I did a Google check but the statistics aren't much use; it counts "Troll Hunter" "among "The Troll Hunter", and if you remove "The Troll Hunter" from the "Troll Hunter" search it removes all sources where both occur. Taking a look at the English language article sources, three use "Trollhunter", two use "TrollHunter", while two use "Troll Hunter". There is no clear consensus among the article sources, but all the English language sources in the article drop "The" from the title, and if we have a choice of titles WP:NAMINGCRITERIA does favor concise titles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC) EDIT: see my reply to Laniala below for why I changed my mind. Betty Logan (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Just a comment from my point of view: WP:COMMONNAME further down makes some clarifications and exceptions for proper names (in WP:TITLEFORMAT and points to WP:THE which I described in my rewritten oppose above), and my personal opinion is that The Troll Hunter/The Trollhunter/The TrollHunter/Troll Hunter/Trollhunter/TrollHunter is a proper name, and omitting The will in my opinion also change the meaning slightly, f.ex. "The Deer Hunter" vs "Deer Hunter" (substitute Deer with Troll).
    There are however English language links that uses The in front of the title. (I copied some of them down to this thread.) And in searches, as compared to actual typing, I believe "the troll hunter" [19] is a subset of "troll hunter" [20]. [21][22]. Which I believe means that searching for the latter will also give results including the former, but not necessarily vice versa. (F.ex. if searching for colours: "light blue" [23] is subset of colour "blue" [24], [25][26]). -Laniala (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I've changed my support to an "oppose" after doing more research on this matter. I still think you are conflating the argument, we are not interested in translations, we are interested in what the work is referred to in English language sources. All four variants are obviously in usage, and I don't trust the Google stats because they look to be double counting in some cases. However, I have checked the MPAA (US film certification) and BBFC (UK certification sites), and both organizations registered the film as "The Troll Hunter". This means that the film was submitted under this version of the title, so would have been officially distributed in both the UK and US as "The Troll Hunter". Artwork and publications may have presented the title in other ways, but given the lack of consensus between the English language sources, I think it is sensible to use the title they were officially distributed under in two English speaking countries. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
So it was submitted to the ratings boards/whatever with a "The". It was still distributed without it. And you acknowledged yourself that TrollHunter is the most commonly used. And with or without the space, the "The" is vastly outnumbered. So by Wikipedia's guidelines, surely the "The" should be removed at the very least? Should I spend hours on the MPAA and BBFC websites and find all the examples of films that are known differently and listed at Wikipedia differently from what their original submissions? I'm not going to do that because I'm not that silly and I've spent enough hours already arguing with Laniana, but I'm certain I could find various other examples. Refer back to the Common Names article that you referenced. Wikipedia doesn't care how films were submitted to the MPAA and BBFC. Am I wrong? Film Fan (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that the film has been distributed using lots of different versions of the title, including "The Troll Hunter". "The Troll Hunter" gets over three million hits on Google so most likely satisifes WP:COMMONNAME just as much as the others. The problem here is that there doesn't seem to be a way to objectively measure which title is used the most in English language sources (since Google will count the all hits for "the troll hunter" under "troll hunter" too). However, the MPAA and BBFC records do show which title the film was submitted under in those two countries which is a good way of settling the debate in my view (since in the majority of cases films will be distributed under the title they were submitted under), unless someone has a clear and objective way of measuring how much each title form has been used. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to see support for what in my view is clearly, clearly, clearly a much less used title (as evidenced by my many links to covers and film websites) but I'm not gonna discuss it any more. Seven Samurai had a "The" before it for many years before they decided to get rid of it. But then they got rid of, so that's what the film is called now.
The article you keep referencing states: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change."
Canada is the only English-speaking country using the title "The Troll Hunter". Common sense, good people.
Anyway, I'm out. I don't get it, but it's only a Wikipedia article. Not gonna lose sleep over it :) Film Fan (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
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.

Edit request on 12 April 2012[edit]

To add a {{movenotice}} template as a discussion is currently ongoing for it to be moved

It would display like this:

{{movenotice|Troll Hunter|discuss=Talk:The Troll Hunter#Requested move}}

Thank You

Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Look at the film poster and sources. Everything uses The in describing it. No real reason presented for a move. Nate (chatter) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to Neutral; I didn't realize there was a long discussion involving the title already, and I'm not willing to get into this. Withdrawing. Nate (chatter) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look at those sources again. And the poster you are looking at was revised before the theatrical release, as is fairly often the case. Film Fan (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Keilana|Parlez ici 03:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Now that the requested move has been closed, I've lifted all protection from this page. I'm assuming that no-one is going to start changing the page name in the near future, and that all parties will be able to collaborate to update the page text to accurately reflect the history of naming of this film. Of course it will be easy to restore the protection if future problems arise. Franamax (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I only joined the discussion after a request at the Film project and have no real investment in the page title, but I'm a bit confused as to how the rename was closed out. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for any of the names (the one that it was moved to wasn't even proposed), so I wouldn't be surprised if several editors don't consider it resolved. On the other hand I do hope the issue is now settled. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If Laniala counts as several editors, then you're probably right. And his oppositional argument was nonsensical. But thanks for taking the time to help resolve it. Film Fan (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So nice of you to speak on behalf of everybody else. Are you a mind reader too, now? How do you know that the few supports for «Troll Hunter» would have supported the spelling «Trollhunter»? After all, your move to that title is how you first got reverted, and not by me.
And our/my arguments may have been nonsensical to you, perhaps because as you clearly stated from the second edit your viewpoint wasn't even up for discussion, and thus you had no intention to look beyond your own nose.
Despite what you actually thought you said, you could not prove that the film exists without “The”. You ignored our links showing otherwise, and as Betty Logan even gave links for, the formal registry names in the US and UK includes a “The”.
And if you looked at the foreign title examples I gave they follow the WP:THE guideline for foreign titles, or the deriving guideline for paintings (and similar). The counter example you gave, Seven samurai, are so named because Japanese does not have indefinite/definite articles, and the guideline specifies that for those languages the article name should not use “The”. Now this article doesn't follow that guideline, and has become (the only?) one of the exceptions. -Laniala (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. The literal translation is irrelevant. The most used title is what counts and this article finally does follow the guidelines. Have a nice day :) Film Fan (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. -Laniala (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Move back to Trolljegeren?[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.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The logic of the proposal and supports is baffling. This is a baby with bathwater proposal that ignores the reasoning behind the relevant title naming policies—there are four English names which people argued over so we should move this to a title that will confound (astonish) the expectations of most people searching for this movie with an unexpected and unfamiliar, non-English title? The discussion of original research is a misunderstanding of that policy's applicability (original research is a standard applied to material we wish to add to the encyclopedia and not to the external sources). Meanwhile, we could indeed play pin the tail on the donkey for which English name variation to use but we do not need to since one was chosen in the prior, closed discussion. The fact that some may still not like which one of the English common title forms was chosen is not any basis for choosing one that people will not recognize. We could invoke IAR here if the proposal would benefit the encyclopedia, but here it would not. At the forefront of our consideration should be maximizing the interests of readers, not making a point because of a behind the curtain squabble. In short, no compelling basis has been made out to contravene multiple policies to move this to an unnatural and uncommon name that most of our readers will not recognize.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal and concerns[edit]

TrollhunterTrolljegeren – I have read the discussion, and it seems to me that the interpretation of the sources, even when I haven't read the sources yet, prove English names with different modifications to be vague and dubious to accurately use for the Wikipedia article. "Trollhunter", "Troll Hunter", "The Troll Hunter", and whatever that has "Troll" and "Hunter" within... I don't know how this is worth arguing for or against.

However, I'm proposing a renaming to the original Norwegian name, Trolljegeren, because, even when English is a reliable, common, and comfortable language for English readers, it helps people decide whether to use one English spelling or the other English, as the Norwegian title is absolute and prestigious and avoids warring over one or the other.

As discussed in WT:RM#Strange move closure?, one is concerned over the closure because "trollhunter" was excluded from proposal; the rest said it was the right decision. However, I wonder if we should always use English titles due to policies and guidelines. I wonder: is titling foreign works into English the right preference? This is why I don't title dan dan you qing into either English translation: Light Exquisite Feeling and Most Exquisite Feeling, which are redirects to there. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)... I don't know what it says, but I don't see how this guideline solves problems of the previous discussion. The Big Day is redirected to Jour de fête. WP:UE instructs us to use English title based on accurate translation with or without reliable sources; MOS:ENGVAR... does it have real answers of accuracy? Maybe Planet of the Apes (novel) and La Planète des singes are the correct answers to this problem, but I doubt it, even when I prefer "Planet of the Apes" as the usable, preferable, and common name ever made for English-language understanders. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood the use English policy. When English language titles are available, we use those over foreign language titles. If no English language title is available, then you have the option of translating the foreign language title or using the foreign title itself, particularly if English language sources tend to use the original foreign title. You're confusing 'translation' with 'existence'. --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Stroke out my misinterpretation. Per WP:UE, available English title is preferred over foreign title. If English title is not avaiable, either foreign title or English title. Did I get it right? If so, then I don't know which source is reliable. Maybe "reliable" sources... may be reliable, but does that "reliable non-primary source" surpass the original foreign title, a WP:primary source? --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)An English title is preferred over the foreign title. When one is available, we use that regardless of whether it is an accurate translation or not (sometimes, the English title and the foreign title may have completely different meanings, cf. Throne of Blood). You should ignore the original language title and look only at reliable English language sources (The New York Times is an excellent example of a reliable English language source). (Unless, the English language title is little used and the film is also known in English sources by its foreign language title. In that case, the foreign title becomes the reliably sourced English title. cf. Pather Panchali). --regentspark (comment) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A little off-topic, but I have done inserting "copyright status" section in Storm in a Teacup (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) several months back. They considered it an original research because primary sources that I used do not interpret or say that the film was either out of copyright or still copyrighted. Therefore, we discussed first, while I used sources as part of Further reading and External links, and the decision was "no consensus to include".
Back on topic let's get. To be honest, I think it was an "original research" to say "Trollhunter" is correct way to please English readers, accurate or not. Interpretting that either "(The) Troll Hunter" or "Trollhunter" is correct or incorrent is an "original research", and no other sources have analyzed the spellings and modifications of English translations. The notability of an accurate English title is not yet established. If it is not an original research, then how will I be proven wrong to say that it the English titling is an "original research" or non-notable? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you of one thing. If The New York Times calls the film "Trollhunter" in its review (as the closer of the previous move request says), it is definitely not Original Research. That's the whole point of relying on reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
To analyze its reliability ([27]), I have questions. Why did the reviewer choose that translation rather than others? Why did the reviewer appease the readers by doing so? Has the reviewer analyzed the translation and other translations themselves? If reliable, is the translation itself reliable and used by other sources? Is the review overall reliable for translation accuracy? --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(another comment) Why was NY Times interpretted as a reliable source for naming an article by that English translation of a title in a previous discussion? Was NY Times correct or incorrect? Are other translations correct? Does using "trollhunter" make NY Times correct? Were other sources wrong or unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(more) WP:TRANSCRIPTION might or might not have answers for this. This begs a question: was a previous move a "faithful translation"? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your questions are all besides the point and show a basic lack of understanding of how we use sources. The point is that the NYT used "Trollhunter", therefore Trollhunter is an English name for the film per a reliable source. There may or may not be other competing English names, but Trollhunter is definitely one. Original research doesn't enter into the picture at all. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


  • In other words, New York Times is reliable because "New York Times" says so? Mostly, it is reliable for events, works, nature, and people. Is it reliable to be a titler of non-English works by using one English movie title in reviews and articles? I beg your pardon, but I haven't seen the reviewer analyze or review the title in a review. Why would international distributors choose either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter", and U.S. distributors choose "Troll Hunter", while the review calls it "Trollhunter"? --George Ho (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    I would guess that New York Times, like most newspapers, magazines, online shops, bloggers, etc that do a film review, they were either at a promotional preview at some cinema/theatre, or were simply handed a DVD/Blu-ray. The spelling then reflects back on what that version says from that distributor's side. So in the case of spellings of film titles, I would consider that as reliable as the distributor's spelling is, which in this Troll film's case varies. -Laniala (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    Well, to me, it would be an original research to conclude that either one or the other English title is common by sources, reliable or not, by concluding that many sources says one or one reliable says other. Even "reliable sources", such as review or the English distributors, do not conclude that one or the other is right or wrong. In fact, I decide to conclude that the previous discussion itself was an WP:OR and a violation of WP:NOT (in some ways, if not all) by nomination, interpretation, and closure because sources are concluded to be reliable or unreliable, to be used for personal preferences or pleasure, and to please and appease English readers rather than to improve inner integrity of educating people the right way. I have begun to think it was wrong to make one group feel inferior by doing either way in the previous discussion to make the other superior because... everybody is correct their "special" ways. However, RegentsPark doesn't think it is an "original research", but... Anyway, WP:TRANSCRIPTION says "faithful translation" is not an original research. How faithful are "Trollhunter", "troll hunter", "The Troll Hunter"? If all three are faithful, then why fighting over this? Isn't "faithful translation" vague? Anyway, maybe we must discuss guidelines and policies further after closure of this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    As said elsewhere, what is most common depends entirely on how you search, how the search engine interprets your search query, and how you decide to interpret the search result. Being such a common word as “The” and a simple character as a space, you can come up with the result you want from your point of view. So I agree, concluding on what is the most common would be original research (at least in this case), and which is also why I found the previous move odd when it was using Common Name as reason for the move to “Trollhunter”.
    Saying what NYT calls the film would not be original research. But from this newspaper's spelling concluding that it is more reliable than others and that newspaper's spelling is the most common name in existence, I certainly would claim is original research, and might be close to WP:SYNTHESIS.
    If following WP:TRANSCRIPTION and “faithful translation [...]” then “The Troll Hunter” is the only correct alternative. Ref. Norwegian_language#Nouns. Alternatively “The Trollhunter” depending on how you decide to spell it, cf. English compound. Other versions would not point to Hans, the troll hunter we follow through the film. -Laniala (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────With my apologies, George Ho, this is devolving into farce. You need to get it into your head that a reliable source is a reliable source because they're generally good with fact checking. If we can't trust any source, then we'll need to replace the WP:UE with WP:UF because who the heck knows what the person giving the English title was thinking anyway. You're just throwing policies around without understanding any of them and I'm beginning to wonder if it is mere coincidence that this article has the word "Troll" in its title. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked the same a while ago during the initial move and edit warring ;D [28] and the response was that I was a kid and ignorant, maybe because I misspelled Blu-ray... -Laniala (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
To Regents: To be fair, yes, reliable is reliable. Well, I was wrong to call NYTimes an original research and unreliable. "Trollhunter" is verified by NYTimes; that's it. However, as Laniala said, concluding either one English spelling from one source is more official for the article title than other reasonable titles... if that is not a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, what do you call? And am I trolling; if so, how? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If one reliable english source uses Troll Hunter and another uses Trollhunter, then both are candidate titles for the articles and neither can be, by definition, original research. The fact that you keep throwing policies around without seeming to understand them is why I think it may be possible you're just trolling. Not saying you are, just that it's possible. Another possible alternative is that you have serious competency issues. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
...After this discussion is over, maybe we can take the OR matters related to this topic to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, as there's no pointing out about who's right or wrong. They know what to do. If you want to discuss me, come to my talk page. By the way, what does this mean:

The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

I wonder if this relates to article titling by this, as well:

[WP:Article title] is supplemented by other more specific guidelines, which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.

Can you prove how I misunderstood policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
After some thought about the title translations themselves, there are "troll" and "hunter" in each translation. Troll=troll, jegeren=hunter, isn't it? Concluding one name as a common name may vary on reliable sources and available translations. In this case, regardless of spelling, all translations of Norwegian title are verified by reliable sources and correct. I should have known earlier that my conclusions were too rushed and flimsy, and there is no excuse for my wordings, misleading or not. Violation of WP:BATTLE is not ruled out by me, however (obviously, the previous discussion is full of battles over translations and spellings). Moreover, I'm concerned over policies and guidelines of translations that may intend to please English readers, as something like the previous discussion and WT:RM#Strange move closure? may happen again. Also, my concerns over closure is not ruled out by me, but, if it didn't violate WP:OR, it may have violated any other policy or guideline. Nevertheless, I don't know how I'll be careful about violation claims next time. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if there's any question left regarding the title, it's whether it should be Trollhunter or Troll Hunter. Fight over that all day long if you care about it (I cared enough to have the "The" removed, because that's a heavily minority title), but the fact is: TROLLHUNTER--with or without a space--is the most used title by a longshot, so it will not be changed to the original Norwegian title. Film Fan (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


The English language is preferred over the original foreign one (if it was originally a foreign movie or book), but pages like Let the Right One In, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and The Orphanage keep their English titles. Let the Right One In isn't 'Låt den rätte komma in' even though thats its original title. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo isn't 'Män som hater kvinnor' (translates literally to Men Who Hate Women). The Orphanage isn't 'El Orfanato'. But I see that you are saying that with Trolljegeren, there aren't any other titles, so then the readers can choose which one they want to, either Troll Hunter, or The Troll Hunter, or TrollHunter. But as titles on Wikipedia, even if the article is based on a foreign film or novel, it will mostly always have its English title, like another poster has said, if it actually has one. So I say we keep to the English.Charlr6 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support – Even though such a move would not be consistent with article naming guidelines (Trolljegeren is not a common title in English language sources) I think it is worth invoking WP:IAR in this case, for the simple fact there is no definitive English language alternative. An agreement on which Englis title to use clearly isn't going to be reached, so we could redirect all the English variations to it and be done with this debate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    I seriously doubt if moving to a non-English title, against policy, will resolve anything. Article naming should not be taken lightly. Our readers expect to see something that makes sense to them when they type in their preferred topic title and choosing something that is, at best, a third choice title that will likely be unfamiliar to English speakers, is not a good way to go about doing that. --regentspark (comment) 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    See my comments above. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – goes against the guidelines and English-language and international readers. Film Fan (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Care to elaborate your argument? --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The film is called Trollhunter in English-speaking countries as well as many foreign-speaking countries. Anyway, I've done all the arguing I want to do further up the talk page :) Film Fan (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I was planning to simultaneously propose a change for WP:UE and some related, but I could not, as this would be seen as disruptive to start two simultaneously active discussions. So I must wait until this discussion and Talk:The Wandering Songstress is over. In the meantime, I won't change my mind about this renaming proposal. --George Ho (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When there are established English-language options, we should choose one. Dohn joe (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no reason to move to native name when an English one exists. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Just one question for you: Do you think moving this article to "Trollhunter" rather than "Troll Hunter" or keeping it as "The Troll Hunter" was the right move? Is this relevant to this discussion to you? --George Ho (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To be frank, sources prefer to use one spelling, others prefer another, others prefer one. In other words, not "an English one", but three English ones... or more. Why would moving it to original non-English title be pointless if there are more than two English names? No sources say that one name is correct or incorrect; no sources say either the other or two are incorrect or correct. Yes, they are available. However, I wonder if anybody here has read the previous discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Trollhunter is by far the most used title, as concluded in the previous discussion. If it was unclear which was used the most and the difference between Trollhunter and Troll Hunter wasn't so negligible, I would consider your argument, but as it is, no way. Film Fan (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually that isn't true at all, as you well know. The hit rate on google for "troll hunter" [29] is much higher than the hit rate for "trollhunter" [30]. You are welcome to your opinion in this matter but please don't misrepresent the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, Bets. TrollHunter, Troll Hunter. Negligible. I couldn't care less if you put a space in it or not. It's still the most used title by a long shot. Film Fan (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons given by nominator, George Ho, and Betty Logan. In addition, as pointed out in the questioning about the move closure, it now seems to me the previous move to Trollhunter have similarities with WP:BATTLE, so this move to the original title would be a neutral title where nobody can argue about the spelling. -Laniala (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per George Ho and Betty Logan. Multiple titles exist in English, and are detected to be equally preferred, making it impossible to decide which to use. Hence, a move to a title in the official language of the country of its production from which redirects could be created so that the readers land up here would be more than just useful. Not only that, it would avoid the edit-warring which has been happening. Secret of success (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is ridiculous; we have two or three commonly used English titles, and because we can't all agree on which one is the best to use (though all seem to agree that any would be at least OK), we should use the non-English title that very few English speakers will have heard of? That's not supported by any guideline and it's certainly not supported by common sense. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • How's that not a "common sense"? Seems you appear text-frustrated by the way I do. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • That's my point, it is common sense that we shouldn't disadvantage readers to appease a few editors who can't decide whether there should be a space in the title or not. And yes, I am a little frustrated because this is a waste of time. Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Using the same argument as the previous move closure, COMMONNAME, how is Trolljegeren more ridiculous than Trollhunter. Excluding Norwegian sites, I personally get pretty close numbers for the spelling “Trollhunter” as for “Trolljegeren”. [31] (here Google even asks me if I meant “Troll Hunter”) [32] But as I also have said, your search method and search result might be different, which is why Google searches should taken with a big pinch of salt in concluding what is the most common, at least with such common words and characters as “the” and a space. -Laniala (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, but even excluding Norwegian sites, many of the hits are not in English. I haven't looked too closely to be honest, but your comments seem to me like they might be a valid reason to move the article to "Troll Hunter", something which I would consider supporting. Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was going to suggest speedy close per WP:SNOW, but am stymied by the fact that there are several in support of this bizarre proposal. Jenks is absolutely right. Because we can't all agree on which of 2 or 3 commonly used slight variations of the same name is the most commonly used, we should ditch them all, ditch WP:UE, and go with Norwegian per IAR? The only precedent I can think of for such reasoning is the compromise title temporarily used by the Sega Genesis article. See the FAQ at Talk:Sega Genesis for that story, but the upshot is that the compromise title was ultimately rejected in favor of one of the two titles about which initially there was no agreement, just as there is here.

    To apply the reasoning there to this case: It is true that "Trollhunter", "Troll Hunter", "The Troll Hunter" and even "TrollHunter" are all perfectly acceptable titles for this article. However, the simple fact that there are multiple reasonable titles for this article is not a good reason to invoke IAR to use an unreasonable one that flies in the face of principles and guidance at WP:CRITERIA and WP:UE. Titles should not be changed unless there is a good reason to do so (like when the name conflicts with other uses in Wikipedia), and since this current title, Trollhunter, is perfectly fine, and no title that meets policy/guidelines better has been proposed, there is no good reason to move it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

    • I have good reasons to propose this change: anybody must feel free to do translate the Norwegian title they want. Concluding "trollhunter" as the article title is against freedom to translate the Norwegian title into either "troll hunter" or "trollhunter" or "the troll hunter". Well, they are perfectly acceptable titles, but, per WP:N, it's not like Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive or Super Nintendo/Super Famicom. In fact, translations have not been notably and substantially analyzed and compared by non-primary sources. I have raised original research concerns above about using sources to decide what to do, yet Laniala elaborated more than I could do. Sometimes, policies and guidelines are too vague to to exact, such as WP:TRANSCRIPTION. It has "faithful translation" in that policy, but including "more faithful" or "less faithful" in the policy would be against WP:OR itself. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • By the way, Diabolique (1955 film) and Les Diaboliques (film) would prove my point, unless it looks flimsy. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • By that same reasoning, shouldn't the article have been kept at its old title “The Troll Hunter” which it had for one and a half year? Instead it was proposed moved to “Troll Hunter”, but ended up at “Trollhunter” just because Jsigned aka Film Fan would not under any circumstances allow it to be kept with a “The” in front, and in the end did look very much like WP:BATTLE [33][34][35][36].
    It's not like WP policies and guidelines have been followed strictly so far in my opinion, but have been applied pretty liberally. My suggestion was to follow WP:THE which was shot down and ignored. Instead WP:COMMONNAME was used on a title that arguably is the least common spelling of the three suggested “Trollhunter”, “Troll Hunter”, “The Troll Hunter”. -Laniala (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh, that won't help, as well. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Changing English name to English name to English would be warring over and over. Changing English to English won't help ease tensions; it stresses more. THE and COMMONNAME are a little too vague for non-English topics that have more than two reasonable English titles per sources. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree to what you're saying here. :) I was just trying to point out why it in my opinion looks odd to reject this move request, but still allow the first move request to be kept, especially when the first didn't end up at the requested title, and used WP policies quite liberally (in my opinion) to place the article where it now is. -Laniala (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If not "odd", what else would you call it? "Hypocritical" is too strong, undesirable, and slanderous, so let's not use that. "Weird" is too generic and too misunderstood. How about "coincidental"? As what you said, I wonder why English titles are worth battling about, while this proposal of mine is obviously becoming rejected by majority. --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would go with the title on the actual film, which is TROLLHUNTER for the English-subtitled version. For WP purposes, that would be Trollhunter, which is what we have now. Thus no title change is needed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I begin to think that you haven't read the whole discussion, have you? --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) And subtitle translators never make mistakes? ;) There are several well known and "famous" translator mistakes of English films to Norwegian subtitles that were applied to well known films. Star Wars probably having the most well known translator mistakes. But I suppose without knowing Norwegian they are kind of hard to understand. -Laniala (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about the translation - I'm talking about going with the official title of the film, which is TROLLHUNTER for the English-subtitled version. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I... beg... your pardon. "The Troll Hunter" was used by some official international distributors; "Troll Hunter" was used by some other officials. --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
        • So what? Neither of those titles is "Trolljegeren" (the title you're trying to get this article moved to). Film Fan (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the RM above, WP:USEENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME, and every other WP pillar, policy, guideline, essay, and talk page other than WP:IAR. (Even WP:IAR, since ignoring the rules here has no benefit to WP.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    Does not have any benefit to WP? I seriously beg to differ. After all, we aren't here to act as lawyers. Secret of success (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    Correct, using the title Trolljegeren seriously has no benefit whatsoever to the encyclopedia, and only a marginal benefit to a subset of the editorship. Anyone acting like a lawyer is invited to stop, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seriously people. This move request and, I'm sorry to say, the support !votes from some generally reasonable people, is about the silliest I've ever seen (and, trust me, I've closed hundreds of them so I know what I'm talking about!). We have two English titles which are almost exactly the same (I mean, "Troll Hunter" and "Trollhunter", different, really?) and we're supposed to be talking about using instead a Norwegian title that no one has ever heard off? The only benefit apparently is that we'll get the chance to "not act like lawyers" (with apologies SOS!). IAR is one thing but we might as well chuck the entire policy framework, particularly the one about using recognizable titles, out of the window with this one! --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Regentspark, if you have a better solution that will give equal weight to all the English titles without any difference, I would be pleased to hear it. Secret of success (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Picking either would be fine. Picking neither is so far from right that it defies belief. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That gives an impression of sole "official title" to the reader, when it may not be so. Trolljegeren would be definitive, and suit the country of its production. Secret of success (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Our readers should never be under the impression that our article titles are normative. Again, the least worst option here is clearly picking a title that readers will have heard of rather than one they wouldn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
(Overheard on Bear Mountain) JACK: "Hey. I saw this great movie Trollhunter. You should check it out." JILL: "You mean you saw Trolljegeren." JACK: "Trolljugwhat? I saw Troll Hunter." JILL: "Wikipedia says it is called Trolljegeren." JACK: "Oh. I guess Loews, fandango, and the distributor got it wrong. Really, why don't they check with wikipedia before they name a film." Jack shifts the bucket to his left hand. "Hey Jill, will you join me in a roll down this hill?" (You guys can enjoy Trolljugwhatever in the original Norwegian. I'm off to see Troll Hunter or Trollhunter, in English!) --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the New York Times review has the current title. It's a film that has been distributed in English, not a person. If however André Øvredal becomes notable and gets a BLP, then the NYTimes rule that French, German and Spanish names are okay, Norwegian ones are too difficult, won't apply, unless he has ever played hockey (private joke). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a no-brainer. WP:NCF#Foreign-language films is quite clear on this. The most common title is Trollhunter as it is known as this in 6 territories (USA, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain), with Troll Hunter and The Troll Hunter in only one territory each. Simple. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:NCF#Foreign-language films and WP:COMMONNAME. We can continue to discuss whether to spell it "Troll Hunter" or "Trollhunter" if necessary (although it is silly debates like this that make me want to write WP:Article titles#Just flip a coin and be done with it)... however, either one is better than the completely uncommon "Trolljegeren". Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I may be wrong but if a movie or book is written about a pig farmer, the name of such can become Pigfarmer. Is it bearhunter or bear hunter until a book or movie is written? Since a book/movie was written, I go with Trollhunter.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2012 (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.

File:TrollHunter.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:TrollHunter.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TrollHunter.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Film Fan (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)