Talk:Up in the Air (film)/ Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Steve Hiller

There is no Steve Hiller Wikipedia article, nor is he listed as an actor in the IMDb. I could not find any indications that he is an established actor. There is a Steve Hiller listed in the IMDb who is a camera operator and electrician.--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon Turner

Other than the IMDb, I have not seen a screenwriting credit for Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air. Unfortunately, the IMDb is not always a reliable source for film credits. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The official website for Up in the Air includes the main credits. Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner are credited for the screenplay.--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Up in the Air (film)#cite note-LAT_2010-01-15-27 provides more information on Sheldon Turner's ocntribution to the screenplay. The information from this article could be used to expand the Development and/or Writing sections. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Film Credits

The primary film credits are given on the official website ( --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cost leadership?

I have not seen Up in the Air. However, the reviews that I've read indicate that Ryan Bingham fires employees for companies unwilling to do it themself. There seems to be no indication that he selects the employees to be fired. The citations do not support this either. Someone who has seen the film would be in a better position to determine whether this recent edit is appropriate. --Dan Dassow (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Justification for rewrite tag

In revision 333012628 by (talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template without providing a reason. If anyone sees a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it here. I am asking for someone from the American cinema task force to determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the editor's placing that tag, and have removed it. It should only be used on articles that need "so much cleanup that completely rewriting them may be necessary". I'm sure if I looked hard enough I'd see something that I'd do differently, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the article. If there is, I'd urge the editor who placed the tag to list his or her concerns here. All the best, Steve T • C 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Steve for removing the tag. I am anxious to know why the IP added that tag. --Mike Allen 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


This article is very repetitive. It needs to be more succinct and concise. - tbone (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In one particular parts? --Mike Allen 04:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You meant **what** particular parts? Well, I'd start with the strategy segment. Can we trim that down? I'm sure it's useful for studio/distribution strategists, but for the general public its rather not notable... (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dan - You seem to be the primary author here...would you mind if someone edited down some of your well-developed areas, for readability? I'd probably start with the box office strategy and critical response sections.JGray (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@IP: Yes it seems that does need to be trimmed down (something like Changeling (film)#Strategy, which Dan also contributed to). @JGray, the Box office section will be expanded even more in the coming weeks, and the critical reception—what would need to be taken out? Perhaps formatted into sections, like here? --Mike Allen 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the recent change to Changeling (film)#Strategy and was thinking of doing something similar with this article. I am wondering whether a daughter article would useful and summarize the current section for the general public. Please feel free to make whatever edits would make this section and the article in general more readable. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed repetitive to me as I read it. One example: The following, from the "Writing" section, repeats stuff we've already read by that point. "Up in the Air is a film adaptation of the 2001 novel, Up in the Air, written by Walter Kirn. Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner wrote the screenplay.[24] Reitman previously wrote Thank You for Smoking.[25] " Mad Thinker (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see what I can do removed the repetition that your noted. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I addressed the redundancy that Mad Thinker noted. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed the introduction. I believe I have addressed Jeremy Butler’s concern that it may be too long. If the introduction meets Wikipedia quality standards, please remove "intro length" from the "article issues" template.

Please comment on Mr. Butler’s other concerns and provide suggestions on how to address these, or make appropriate edits.

  • It may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail which may only interest a specific audience.
  • It may be too long. Some content may need to be summarized or split.
  • It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Awards and nominations section to a new article List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air. Needed to be done for a while now. I suggest trimming release and reception, because general viewers of the article will not be so interested in that much detail, except insiders. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I am done trimming for now. I attempted to shorten the article, removing trivial (my opinion) details and information not as relevant to the article. I'm welcome to any comments on how to trim it down further if needed. I must agree that is is still a very lengthy article. I'm wondering, Mr. Dassow, if the Production and Release sections should be trimmed further?Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 03:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Andy, please call me Dan. I wish to thank you for the edits and creating the child article List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air. I was not certain how to do this and appreciate the help. I shortened the Release Strategy section and moved the detail to a child article Up in the Air - Release Strategy. Release Strategy section probably still needs to pared down further, but at least this is a start. I am considering moving the Music section to a child article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan, since you started a new article on release strategy, I'm thinking that the new article can retain as much information as it needs and probably does not need to be pared down. Also, this article here looks much better! I think the major points of improvement of the article in discussion are covered at this point. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy, JGray, Mike, et al, thank you again for the help, especially in condencing certain sections. I tend to follow the maxum of nothing exceeds like excess when writing an article. Whether or not there should be a seperate article on Release strategy of Up in the Air, will become clearer in time. I do find the number of interviews amazing that Jason Reitman and to lesser extent Anna Kendrick, Vera Farmiga, George Clooney and Kevin Renick have participated in.
I am currently pondering how to expand the Plot summary into a real Plot section without spoiling the film for first time viewers, especially this early in the theatrical run.
There is a lot of interesting information at Paramount's Up in the Air database that could proved interesting, especially Up in the Air Final Notes. The former is different than the Official Up in the Air] website. The latter provides a lot of information on the production. I am also wondering whether the article should mention the difficulties that Vera Farmiga preganancy presented and whether it can be done in a sensitive fashion. Both Reitman and Farmiga bring it up in interviews. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is repetitive and much too long. It should be objective, concise, and contain only the plot, the cast and key creative crew. Some of these sections, Release Strategy etc. read like a marketing department's attempt to memorialize their efforts. Someone please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upinarms (talkcontribs) 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Differences between book and film

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's screenplay is a very loose adaption of Walter Kirn's novel. I am considering adding a section to the article on the book (Up in the Air) and referening it in this article. The article on Walter Kirn's novel is significantly shorter than this article and a few editors continue to confuse details between the book and the film adaption. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan, you may want to refer to the transcript of an NPR interview with Walter Kirn. It's online at Mad Thinker (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Mad Thinker, thank you for reminding me. The Walter's Kirn's interview is very interesting. The transcript is faithful to the interview. Walter Kirn also wrote an article, George Clooney Saved My Novel, that has information on the differences between the novel and the film. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I believe that the phrase "quietly reflecting on how lonely and insubstantial his life really is" that Kchishol1970 added in Revision 338364647 is an interpretation of the film, rather than a specific plot point. I would appreciate other perspectives before reverting the edit. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe any speculation about what Ryan is thinking at the end of the film is inappropriate and should be excised from the article. When viewing the film, all the viewer sees is Ryan surveying the Departures board, and the viewer must draw his own conclusions about what the scene means; there's no voice saying "Ryan is quietly reflecting on how lonely and insubstantial his life really is," or "Ryan is quietly accepting his life and role as a person who initiates those transitions" (as written in the current version of the article). I don't see why the article should include that voice when the film doesn't; it's a somewhat dishonest way to summarize the film. The viewer just sees the image; the reader of this article should just "see" the image as well. Propaniac (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, neither of those descriptions is how I perceived the scene. (I thought he was following Natalie's advice from earlier in the movie, about what she would do with so many FF miles.) Propaniac (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Propaniac, thanks! I appreciate your feedback. Jason Reitman has made it clear in a number of interviews that he intended to leave the ending up to the interpretation of the film viewer. My interpretation is that Ryan --Bingham is considering his options, the destination board is a symbol of his many possibilities. However, your and other interpretations are equally valid and distinctly personal. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It#s neither a plot nore a story. It's something in between.Telling the lines surfacically and the deeper impact isn't told. The protagonist, main figure works on a cynical job, but acts human. Paradoxical connection of

this two facts. Empathy for the fired and the so called change manager hasn't any profit himself inspite of gaining miles. A bizarr construction for leading a life. --Danaide (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing Controversy

It appears that edit 338587962 by Katrinamsnbc does not have a neutral point of view. I would appreciate someone else reviewing the edit to make certain it meets Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards. If Katrinamsnbc is associated with MSNBC, there may also be a conflict of interest in this edit. Katrinamsnbc has only made two edits, both related to this topic. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We should not have a "Controversy" subsection; it exaggerates the issue. In addition, the indieWIRE article does not back the statement. It appears that the editor drew the conclusion from the article where none existed. The Los Angeles Times article is worth citing, but the information about screenwriting credits should be incorporated into the "Writing" section so all content flows naturally. Erik (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Eric, this was my original assessment. However, I wanted someone else's opinion. I had planned to incorporate the LA Times article into the article, before the edit from Katrinamsnbc. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
According to 'Up in the Air' Holds a Damage-Control Screening by Steve Pond (January 25, 2010) Sheldon Turner and Jason Reitman talked about their respective contributions at a Writer's Guild of America screening of Up in the Air on Sundary January 24, 2010.
Paraphrasing Steve Pond's article slightly, "Sheldon Turner discovered Walter Kirn’s book around 2001, and wrote a screenplay that he sold to DreamWorks in 2003. Years later, Reitman discovered the book as well. He persuaded his father, Ivan Reitman, to buy the rights – and while the elder Reitman commissioned a screenplay from Ted and Nicholas Griffin, Jason proceeded to write his own script. He did so, he said, completely independently of the Turner script, although he incorporated some elements from the script the Griffins had written for his father. And they, in turn, had seen and taken elements from Turner’s script."
The WGA awarded credit to both Sheldon Turner and Jason Reitman.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The situation does seem pretty clear now, and the article should be updated to describe what happened (especially as the statement that Reitman worked in collaboration with Turner now appears to be wholly inaccurate). The Wrap article and this (currently cited) article refer to some specific script elements that are apparently Turner's work, which may be worth mentioning here.
It also looks to me like the "Development" and "Writing" sections should probably be combined under a single "Development" heading, as the content seems to overlap. Propaniac (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Propaniac, thank you for taking care of this. I agreed with your assessment on what needed to be done. However, I did not have the time to make a good edit. Fortunately, you did a much better job on this edit than I probably would. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

On his final episode of the Tonight show Conan O'Brien was fired by Steve Carell who pretended lines from the film were his own.[1]

Not sure the best way to include this in the article, probably needs to be phrased better. Also the article doesn't include a full transcript and NBC might to ask for the video to be taken down. Multiple sources would help establish that this is notable so I'll see if I can find more and rephrase it better. -- Horkana (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw the show. Steve Carell "fires" Conan O'Brien on O'Brien's last show of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien on Friday January 22, 2010. Carell uses Ryan Bingham's line "Anybody who ever built an empire, or changed the world, sat where you are now. And it's because they sat there that they were able to do it." O'Brien acknowledges that the line came from Up in the Air.
Although I thought this was interesting, I do not believe this is notable. Other sources beyond the Huffington Post article would be helpful. It may be better to include this information on Conan O'Brien's article or The Tonight Show's article.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
For Conan it is one joke of many but for this article it seems like a very prominent mention in popular culture but I'll have a look to see if there are other appropriate places to mention this. Will have to see about getting more sources though to show more than just the Huffington post thought it was notable. -- Horkana (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Miles given to sister and new husband

There is a minor dispute as to how many miles Ryan Bingham gave his sister and her new husband. One editor believed it was one million miles total. I vaguely remember that it was 500 thousand miles each for a total of one million miles. A recent edit changed that to 500 thousand miles total. The script referenced by this article is no help because it mention 400 thousand miles apiece. Pending being able to view the DVD, I suggest we keep the current edit until we have definitive information in order to forstall an edit war.

Pages 117-118
How many miles would it take to
circle the globe?

We have our "around-the-world" tickets.
They're four hundred thousand miles each.

Sounds perfect.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a downloaded DVD screener (used for the awards season) and the operator says 500,000 miles each; making it 1m for the couple. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

Does the added "External link" added in revision 340516700 by KinoLover (talk) meet WikiProject Films standards? Also, Up in the Air is a Russian language site and may constitute link spam. I am inclined to delete this External link and would appreciate other perspectives before doing so. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep exLinks to a minimum, imdb, official site, RT or BOM. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Erik made the edit to bring the article to that standard. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Themes section

I wrote about some parallels between the characters behavior in the movie and relationship, sex, and romance addiction in a book that I cited. I suppose you can call this original research, but then anything about the movie outside of a pure plot summary and facts about production, box office, etc. is "research." I am somewhat inexperienced with wikipedia, so maybe what I wrote WAS out of line, but if it is, then ANY character analysis that isn't a direct quotation from some reputable external source (and frankly an interview is not one, though I suppose you could put the same material under "interview with directors" ) out to be removed, and that would include the current first paragraph of the themes section

"Alex's and Natalie's arrival into Ryan's life challenge his philosophy of a relationship-free life throughout the course of the film (Natalie's relationship with her boyfriend and Ryan's growing attraction to Alex). Natalie begins to realize the disheartening aspects of Ryan's job while questioning the purpose of Ryan's personal miles goal, and how his lifestyle makes it impossible for him to make any real relationship."

That is all interpretation by whomever wrote it. It is not in either of the cited sources. It is just as much "new research" as what I (OriEri) wrote.

OriEri, Unfortunately, although what you wrote was well written and in my humble opinion was an interesting analysis, it constitutes original research. The first paragraph in the Themes section was originally in the Plot section. I believe that it has a citation associated with it at one time. If you believe that the first paragraph in that section constitutes original research, delete it and note the reason for deleting it. Likewise, if we can find a citation from a credible source to support what you wrote beyond the book, we can reinstate it. The Themes section of this article is probably the weakest portion of the article and needs a lot of work. Remember, this article is a work in progress and will probably get a lot more attention now that Up in the Air received an Academy Award nomination. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In the first YouTube video on Ebert, Roger (January 31, 2010). "Roger Ebert Journal: Jason Reitman in conversation". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved February 3, 2010. , Jason Reitman talks at length about themes in Up in the Air. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I read the wikipedia bit on original research. I did cite Anne Wilson Schaff's book "Escaping Intimacy." Is pointing out the correlations to items in that book the original research? I think they are obvious. Also, what constitutes a published source? Suppose I found an analysis written on some random person's blog. Would that be sufficient? What if it was the blog (but still a blog) of someone who works for a print publication (e.g. more widely read, but still not editorially reviewed, fact checked, etc.) I am not trying to be obstinate; I want to understand where the boundaries (or gray areas) are from the perspective of more experienced wiki-ers. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


This article was originally the contents of Up in the Air (film)#Strategy. Under the advice of a number of other editors, including Propaniac, we trimmed that section down to better fit the standards of WikiProject Films. Merging the contents or a sub-set thereof of this article back into Up in the Air (film) is probably not viable.
My personal preference would be to keep this article and refine it, since I developed most of contents of Up in the Air (film) as Jason Reitman, George Clooney, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga were promoting the film. I do, however, admit to feelings of parenthood towards Up in the Air (film) and this article, so I do not have an unbiased point of view in this matter. This article may have already served its purpose and may have outlived its usefulness.
Regardless, I believe there is interesting or unusual, albeit not notable to many people, information in this article:

  1. Jason Reitman indicated that he could relate to that lifestyle of the lead character, Ryan Bingham, and he enjoys it himself. Reitman said, "I think when you're in an airplane it's the last refuge for the people who enjoy being alone and reading a book." This provides insight into why Reitman spent so much time on the road promoting his films and why he chose to adapt the Walter Kirn's book Up in the Air.
  2. Reitman documented his experiences promoting the film. He took photos of everyone who interviewed him and recorded videos in each and every city he visited. He edited these images together into a short video titled Lost In The Air: The Jason Reitman Press Tour Simulator.[1][2] This video provides insight into the film release process.
  3. Peter Sciretta of /Film and Alex Billington of interviewed Jason Reitman on video at the Telluride Film Festival in a Gondola. [3] [4] Their interview is cited as Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-SFilm_2009-09-16-21 and Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-FS_2009-09-16-22, but not included in this article. Jason Reitman can be seen taking video of Mr. Sciretta and Mr. Billington during the interview. Reitman's video is included in Lost in the Air.
  4. Up in the Air was principally filmed in St. Louis, Missouri. Up in the Air was the centerpiece for the 18th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival with Jason Reitman and Michael Beugg in attendance. Kevin Renick, a St. Louis musician who wrote the song Up in the Air, performed half an hour prior to the screening. Yukon Jake, a local St. Louis band who performed during the wedding scene in Up in the Air, provided entertainment during the party held prior to the screening.
  5. Paramount flew 50 members of the press to New York with Anna Kendrick, Sad Brad Smith and representatives of American Airlines to promote Up in the Air. The film was shown on the aircraft's video monitors during the flight from New York to Los Angeles. American Airlines provided the Boeing 767 gratis. Smith performed a few songs including Help Yourself in the aisle of the aircraft. I have not been able to find another example of a press conference for a film being held in aircraft flying coast to coast.
  6. American Airlines and Hilton Hotels were heavily involved in the production, filming and promotion of Up in the Air. Including that information in the main article seems like it would be tangential, but it would be more appropriate for this article.
    --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, all of the information you mentioned looks perfectly acceptable to include in this article, if you want to add it back in. Propaniac (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Bingham: Character vs Singer

This sentence in Up in the Air (film)#Music sounds more like trivia, than something to include in the article: "By strange coincidence, the name of the real-life singer/songwriter of another song nominated for the 2009 Academy Award for Best Original Song, "The Weary Kind" from the Crazy Heart soundtrack, is Ryan Bingham, the same name as George Clooney's character." If this is not trivia, I have a citation for interview with Walter Kirn about the origin of the character's name with him commenting on the coincidence. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 I was going to close this as a procedural matter, in that two sysops had already closed it as failing to make the argument, but I will clarify my reasons for doing so. The argument that the film is the primary use of the title has not been made; it is the majority, or most notable, but not so far as to make the novel and the other use on the disambig page so secondary to provide the rationale for the move, and discussion here has indicated that there is interest in the novel that has been stimulated by the film, clarification over which article refers to which is needful. Further, using the search facility on WP gives a clear choice between the three - no one is going to land on the "wrong" article easily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film)Up in the Air — Hi, wanted to move this page over to the "main page" for this name, as the film has become more commonly known than the book it is based on. I have already moved the article for the book to Up in the Air (book), but I can't move this article, because the destination name is already taken. Don't know how to undo the first move either for that matter. Hope someone can help. —TheFreeloader (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose Neutral Support - Walter Kirn's novel Up in the Air was published in 2001 and takes precedence for the namespace Up in the Air. WikiProject Films’s Naming conventions for films specifies that Up in the Air (film) is the preferred name when there are other articles with the same name. Care should also be exercised in moving an established article. Over 100 articles link to Up in the Air (film). These links would all need to updated. By the way, Up in the Air (novel) would have been a better choice than Up in the Air (book), since it is a novel. The article about Kirn's novel is within the scope of WikiProject Novels. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right about the novel should be placed at Up in the Air (novel), thought of it myself too when I had done the move, but didn't want to create more havoc by moving it again before this was decided. But I still think that the film should have the primary topic position, since WP:PT states that the article most likely to be searched for should have that position. And I people in most instances do and will continue to be looking for the article about this movie when they search for "Up in the Air".TheFreeloader (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
By the logic Gone with the Wind (film) should be named Gone with the Wind and Gone with the Wind should be named Gone with the Wind (novel). Naming conventions exist to make searching easier. I believe it is preferable to redirect Up in the Air to Up in the Air (film) rather than Up in the Air (book) or 'Up in the Air (novel). This would accomplish your original objective without causing major disruption. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
While most people might be looking for the film when searching for Gone with the Wind, the novel is still quite distinguished in its own right. I do not think the same can be said in this case. The novel here is hardly known compared with the movie, which is nominated to academy awards and so on. You are right that a redirect could do about the same job as moving this page, but it really doesn't seem that common to have a primary topic being a redirect. And concerning the disruption it would cause to move this, I think it will be manageable. A redirect left at Up in the Air (film) will be alright for most of the links to the page to still work. It is only the redirects to Up in the Air (film) will actually have to be changed, which I doubt will take long.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum#Question about naming conventions. --Dan Dassow (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I concede that people are confusing the book article with the film article. See revision 345269458 for an example. I changed my vote to support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The phrase up in the air has an ordinary meaning which should not be obscured by a recent movie per WP:RECENTISM. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but doesn't that definition kinda belong in a dictionary instead? You know, WP:NOTDICTIONARY.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Although, Wikipedia is not a dictionary there are good reasons to have disambiguation pages such as Up and Catch-22. The phrase Up in the Air follows that precedence in terms of currency. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see how those other articles sets precedence for this case. It is right that Wikipedia sometimes has articles on phrases and idioms, but then there has to be something more that can be added to article than just a definition of the phrase.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You can't disambiguate the film and novel from the phrase "Up in the Air" if Wikipedia has no article with any information about the phrase. Propaniac (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move Wikipedia has information on two topics referred to as "Up in the Air." A disambiguation page listing two topics is unnecessary; it makes more sense and is more convenient to users to locate one article at the primary title with a hatnote linking to the other article. Per the linked guideline, the primary topic should be the one most likely to be sought under that name by Wikipedia users (it doesn't matter which topic came into existence first). I believe it is more likely that users who navigate to Up in the Air will be seeking the film than the book, so the film article should be the one located at that title. If this move request fails, the book article should be moved back to Up in the Air; redirecting that title to one of the topics, or creating a disambiguation page for only two topics, does not make sense and contradicts Wikipedia guidelines. Propaniac (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Propaniac. Support --TheBearPaw (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move. "Up in the air" is an idiom, and a search engine test does not show anything more than the definition of the idiom. I cannot foresee an encyclopedic article about the idiom. This brings us to the two topics, the film and the novel on which it is based. It is possible for other articles titled "Up in the Air" to exist; IMDb lists several films of that title. Seeing that no articles for these have been created, these topics' notability is either minimal or nonexistent for the encyclopedia. When we compare the film article and the book article, we see that the book article was created in light of the film's development, so this reflects a lack of notoriety on its own. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button for that term." While "up in the air" is an idiom, we need to recognize that readers are looking for an encyclopedic topic that uses it as the title. While the film is recent, a comparison of page views shows that many readers go through the book article to get to the film article. I am positive that once the film article is at Up in the Air and that the book article is disambiguated, we will see much less page views at the book article. Recentism is a valid argument, but judging from the widespread attention toward the film as opposed to the book, the film will still be much more historically significant. I support the move with the novel linked in a hatnote. Perhaps link to the dictionary definition somewhere in the article body or in the footer? Erik (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've changed my vote to Neutral since the recent arguments for moving the article from Propaniac and Erik address my concerns. Walter Kirn is on record as saying that the sales of his book have increased significantly due to the release of the film. I believe the argmuments now support the move. If the consensus also supports the move, I suggest that Up in the Air (book) also be moved to Up in the Air (novel) according to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum#Question about naming conventions. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ronhjones had closed the discussion, writing the following: "The result of the move request was: Page Not Moved. IT can be rather difficult to decide on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with such a simple name - On google "up in the air" film -wikipedia gets 14.7 Million Hits and "up in the air" book -wikipedia get 10.5 Million Hits. Therefore I see no primary topic, but a small leaning towards the film. I will change Up in the Air to redirect to the film, and add a hatnote for the book, also I will change the book to novel. Maybe in a year of so the film might be the primary topic and the request can be re-done." This is improper conduct by an admin because it clearly indicates that this was a unilateral decision on what the outcome of the requested move should be. Any extended prose should be a reading the consensus of the discussion, and while we don't count !votes, there are five supports and one oppose. Clearly there is something amiss here, and I request another admin to review the discussion and determine the outcome. Erik (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
For Up in the Air (film) to be moved to the primary topic, it needs to be shown that it is much more significant than any of the other pages, not just by !voting - or we would be forever moving pages. Several searches (I quoted only one) failed to suggest that the film was much more significant than the book - although, as I said, the fairly simple title makes it harder to get good results (even with quotes around it). Propaniac said "A disambiguation page listing two topics is unnecessary", which is a reasonable argument. It just depends on which one can really be called the primary topic - since there appears to be very little favour over one for another, I did not see it appropriate to declare one at this time - users have said above that interest is growing, and it would seem logical that the ideal would be to wait until a clear "winner" in the primary topic emerges. Some (on my talk page) have suggested that I am casing a !vote - I have no such desire having not seen or read the book, so I have not bias towards either page. Also by making the Up in the Air redirect to the film, then we may be able to see a better picture of page usage of the novel (in the not too distant future), which may help further in deciding the primary topic. However since you wish someone else to close this move, then I will leave this to another admin.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The closing admin is supposed to review the discussion and determine the consensus of multiple editors. The one opposing argument to move was because "up in the air" had an ordinary meaning, but I specifically made a case to refute that in my own argument to move the page. You did not talk about any application of "ordinary meaning" in your closure, however, and there were no remaining opposition arguments about the primary topic. Erik (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If look at the instructions for closing a requested move, it does actually not say there has to be clear evidence which way should be. A lack of (valid) objections is enough for a move to go through, because editors can already move article themselves, when the destination name is not taken. And if you look at guidelines for finding primary topic it does not say that search results is the determining factor in terms of finding a primary topic. It says rather that it is determined by consensus in discussions about requested move. And as there is broad consensus in this discussion about the the movie is the primary topic, it then is the primary topic. I would also say, as both Erik and I have said it before, I do see it as an usually bad practice for a closer to go in and overrule a consensus reached by editors, no matter what the closer thinks about that consensus opinion. It should be the role of the closer to determine whether or not a consensus is right, it should merely be to determine what the consensus says.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment this is still listed, and appears open. (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose leave a dab page at the primary location. (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do you not think that the film is the primary topic on Wikipedia? Like I argued above, the idiom is irrelevant, and the topics that lack articles are irrelevant. The book became known because of the film, but it is still the film that rules the roost when it comes to reputation of an "Up in the Air" topic. Erik (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As this user has not elected to express any reasoning behind their opinion, I do not believe their opinion should be given the same weight as those who have spent time and effort to explain and discuss the actual rationale of supporting or opposing the move. Propaniac (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the 'Go' button for that term." Seeing that the book article was only created when the film started shooting, which was over seven years after the book was published, and that the page views indicate that people go through the book article to get to the film article, it is not "very clear". Do you refute this evidence? Erik (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem with a two-entry dab page is that it creates unnecessary inconvenience. If Foo is a disambiguation page, listing the topics Foo-1 and Foo-2, then every user who's looking for one of those entries has to go through the disambiguation page first. If the article on Foo 1 is moved to Foo, then users who are looking for Foo-1 don't need to go through the disambiguation page, while users who are looking for Foo-2 are no more inconvenienced by having to click the hatnote, than they would be if they had to go through the disambiguation page. The logic is pretty clear. Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As this user's opinion was "supported" only by ignoring the many contrary arguments already posted here, and this user has not elected to address any response from others, I do not believe their opinion should be given the same weight as those who have spent time and effort to explain and discuss the actual rationale of supporting or opposing the move. (I also think it's strange that two anonymous IPs, the latter of whom has never contributed to Wikipedia before or since, would show up in the span of a few minutes to oppose the move using extremely similar !votes.) Propaniac (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The decision to close this move request because the primary topic wasn't clear from a Google search (which had never been introduced into the discussion) is ridiculous. Again, from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." (Italics mine) There was a clear consensus here that the film was the primary topic. If the admin felt that other evidence should be considered, he should have introduced it, but to close the discussion and make a decision against consensus based on one of many possible methods for gauging interest was out of line. (And that one method--how many sites mention "'up in the air' book" vs. "'up in the air' film"--was an extremely weak one. There are much better ways to utilize Google for determining a primary topic, and I'm pretty sure those ways would all favor the film.) Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said it was not a single search, I just exampled one. As I also said the film does get more favour than the book, but not significantly so. I have also now noticed (from my page watches) that Up in the Air is now a dab page for three articles.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Note that it's much more likely that an article or other page about the film will mention the book that it's based on, than that an article or other page about the book, especially one that legitimately supports the notability of the book separate from the film (such as reviews published when the book was released), will mention the film it was adapted into (which would result in an artificially high ratio of book mentions to film mentions). I don't know if that sentence was remotely coherent, but to try to rephrase: anything published before the movie was produced will probably mention just the book, but anything published after the movie was produced will probably mention both the book and the film, which doesn't mean the book is receiving equal attention. Propaniac (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
What is going on here?! We have two closures and they have both been reverted, just because some POV editors are insiting on this no concensus move! Is there nothing in the policies that can stop this happening? Is very clear that the lead of the film over the book is not substancial enough for the move. I hope the next admin has the courage to lock down this discussion once and for all. (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Film is most notable use of the phrase. THF (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The film might be a litle more seen in web pages, but I do not see something like a 2:1 ratio being a large enough majority for making this move. Most moves basde on primary pages are normally around 10:1 - then there is no argument that the move should take place. Films go out of fashion - I can easily see that in the future the film will be "old hat" and the book will take the lead. (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to concur with the guy above. I have seen and read the book, and I think the book is the better option. My neighbor is of the same opinion, but he can't !vote as he uses my PC (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2010 (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.


That play by play (including the 6:30 pm time of the showing on October 14?!?) is utterly unencyclopedic. I see nothing especially unusual about the strategy for releasing the film; the section needs substantial condensing. THF (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)