Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Foreign Film (and Television?) Naming Conventions - Japanese Templates[edit]

I'm cleaning up some of the anime studio pages, making lists and such. I have been trying to follow the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films guide, which listed an example for Japanese foreign language films to use the Template:Lang-ja, but from what I can tell, it is not the favored template anymore for Japanese. Template:Nihongo (and the sub-templates) are reccomended within the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Templates.
Here's some information on why /how it's different Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles/Archive_25#Lang_template. The main thing is that it treats romanized characters differently, and it
Anyway, can the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films guide be updated to use the Nihongo template? Is/was there a preference for using Template:Lang-ja that I"m missing? Here's the change that would need made. I took the 'fix' from the film's current page (which shows you just how prevalent this template is!).

From the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films page:

From the Ran_(film) page:

  • Ran (?, Chinese and Japanese for "chaos", "rebellion", or "revolt", or to mean "disturbed" or "confused")

Updated to show language (lead=yes) - it's default turned off in this template:

  • Ran (?, Chinese and Japanese for "chaos", "rebellion", or "revolt", or to mean "disturbed" or "confused")

Thanks! Kitty4777 (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Silent reversion[edit]

I’ve recently made some edits to this page that User:Lugnuts more recently reverted in full without any sort of explanation that I could find (a blank edit summary and no post on Talk), where I gave explanations for each of my edits. I’m pretty sure that each of the points I raised in those edits was valid, and I believe addressing them would improve the guidance. Also, I’m positive that the example I removed links to an entirely different title as of two weeks ago, so I have no clue why that was restored. If anyone disagrees with any of my edits, please explain which and why so we can try to improve it. Thanks. — (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

IP editor sneaking in to make changes without any talkpage discussion for said changes. Looks like vandalism to me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Either you’re not willing to assume good faith, or you misunderstand what vandalism is. How did my edits damage the page or the encyclopedia? How can they be read as an attempt to damage? Please either back up your accusations or kindly self-revert. Thank you. — (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I misunderstand nothing. You've made no attempt to discuss your changes to a long-standing page. Per WP:BRD, the burden is with you to discuss them here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. I asked what was wrong with my edits. Your answer was that you misinterpreted being WP:BOLD as vandalism, and it sounds like WP:BRD-NOT may be relevant too. If this isn’t the case, again, please explain your reasons for reverting. Thanks. — (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you're an IP-jumping troll and have come across your nonsense before. And you like to try your hand at doing that to other well estabished editors. Pathetic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing of the sort. If you’d rather discuss my general conduct than the specific changes I’ve made here, this isn’t the venue for it, and I’m not going to defend myself against your policy-violating remarks here. If you have a substantive complaint with my edits to this page, please make it known. Otherwise, please restore them. Thank you. — (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I’ve taken it upon myself to restore my edits, since you haven’t said what it was you found objectionable. If it was that you thought it was vandalism, that’s okay—even ClueBot gets false positives. But all I did was remove an outdated example (the article used for “title (year film series)” has been at Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology for the past two weeks) and replace it with one of two hidden requests for a current example. Unless it’s standard practice to keep outdated examples, I don’t get how it’s not uncontroversial. — (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really think there is much point inserting hidden comments into the MOS. What's the point if nobody is going to see them anyway? I agree that the Batman example needs to be updated but an out of date example is preferable to none at all. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Editors will see them, and be able to act on them if desired. See WP:HIDDEN. — (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Editors will see them when they edit the MOS, which is hardly ever, which defeats the purpose. Anyway, it looks like a more contemporary example has been found below. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The OP called the removed bit "an example", which is perfectly exact before the move. Therefore, I agree with keeping it, as per the revert and Betty's comment. — Wyliepedia 11:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    But is it still a useful example when it’s not the preferred name? Seems more like a counterexample, showing that the guidance here is not best practice. But if that’s the way it works, okay. — (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    There's always The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film series). — Wyliepedia 13:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    Nicely resolved. — (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, does anyone have a non-italic title to complement Harry Potter (film series)? That was the other point of my recent edits, if you’ll recall. — (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As none have been suggested, I’ve again added hidden text requesting an example of how that guidance would be followed. I don’t recall ever seeing one myself, so if you have, please share! Thanks! — (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sette note in nero and The Psychic[edit]

A discussion regarding the proposed move of Sette note in nero to The Psychic, which is currently active at Talk:Sette note in nero#Requested move 30 January 2017, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Short films, and an RM about them[edit]

Absent specific guidance on short films on this page, I started an RM at Talk:Too Many Cooks (short)#Requested move 1 February 2017. Your feedback there would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Names and titles[edit]

@Lugnuts: Is there a reason for reverting this edit? The only explanation you gave was “head to the talkpage again,” but you don’t seem to have posted anything here. If there’s nothing objectionable about it (as no objection was raised), please consider self-reverting. — (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to get a WP:CONSENSUS before making a change to a long-established page. Please do so here. If memory serves, you're the one who caused a lot of disruption about this very issue before. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Not only that the change fundamentally alters the long-standing naming convention for film series i.e. Batman (1989–1997 film series) contravenes WP:PRECISION because Batman (1989 film series) is sufficent to disambiguate the series, due to the fact only one Batman film series started in 1989. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Please review WP:EDITCONSENSUS. My edit was well within that policy, and I don’t appreciate the disingenuous vandalism warning you slapped on my talkpage after you failed to make any effort to discuss my good-faith edits. If you would now like to discuss the change, rather than the mere fact that I dare to make a change, then please do so.
@Betty Logan: That title was decided by consensus, as determined by User:Cuchullain. Feel free to start another move discussion, or if you think the move was made in error, you could contact the closer or request a review (though note from that page: Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion.). I would actually say both titles contravene PRECISION because “Batman,” the part outside parentheses, is not a name that reliable sources can be found to have used directly for the subject itself. But may I suggest we take this discussion to the article talkpage? Regardless, as it stands and stood, this title is the best (and, unless I’m mistaken, the only) example we have for the naming pattern. — (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
No, the burden is with YOU to discuss the change to a long-established page BEFORE you make it. I can see you're the same character who continued with some similar shit almost a year ago! Let it go, or you'll be blocked for disruption. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Inserting a comment into someone else’s post without using {{interrupted}} [1] is objectively more disruptive than providing an example to a guideline. And no, that is not what WP:CONSENSUS claims: Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. Your actions here just seem obstructionist. Please either discuss the matter at hand—the substance of the change—or abstain. Thank you. — (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem with your edit is that your example is not consistent with the guideline: If there are two film series with the same name, use (YEAR film series) as the disambiguation term, where YEAR is the year of the first film of the series, such as The Hills Have Eyes (2006 film series). Therefore "Batman (1989 film series)" is the form that is consistent with the guideline, not "Batman (1989–1997 film series)". A single counter-example—and one that resulted from a discusion that takes no account of WP:NCF and WP:PRECISION—is not a backdoor mandate to alter the guideline. Lugnuts is correct about this: you are essentially proposing a change to the guideline, not simply adding an example consistent with the existing guideline, and that requires a discussion and a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I had no intention of changing the guideline. I only wanted to cite the only example on Wikipedia that shows this part of the guideline in action, because there’s little point to a rule that doesn’t affect anything. If there is another example that better fits the guidelines, let’s use that one instead. Any suggestions? — (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It's unlikely there are any unitalicised examples. It will become the "name" of the series just by its usage. We would generally use the title of the first film in a series (Batman (1989 film series), Rocky (film series), etc.) to name the article. It isn't necessarily named after the character, although italics should still be used for Harry Potter (film series) and Bourne (film series) - these are the "subject" examples. It seems another IP was grinding the same axe a while back, and sneakily managed to change this without agreement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your terminology; Harry Potter is the name of the franchise, per source usage. If sources treated it as just the name of the subject (protagonist), then well-edited reliable sources would not italicize it (and they do). Are we just using “subject” to mean “name as determined by sources just like any other names”? Why not just say that? … the title of the article should be Series name (film series), as determined by use in reliable sources, such as …. That addition might actually be redundant with WP:AT and other pages, but it’s more clear. Why have two different ways to say “name”? — (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Or perhaps simply, Series name (film series) or Franchise name (film series)? It sounds like this more accurately and less ambiguously describes what we do. — (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Betty Logan, re [2]: “subjects” aren’t film series either. The idea was it’s the film series of the named franchise. Harry Potter is the franchise, and Harry Potter (film series) is that franchise’s film series. Do we have any “… (film series)” titles that this wouldn’t work for, where we chose a name that had not also been attributed to the franchise? — (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You are over-complicating this. A franchise is comprised of media across several different mediums. Star Wars, for instance, has films, several TV series, books and video games and so on. Regardless of whether a film series takes its title from the franchise name, having a guideline that reads "Franchise name (film series)" reads like it is specifying a disambiguator for franchise, such as Halloween (franchise). "Series subject" is a good catch-all for anything that doesn't have an explicitly obvious title, such as the Jack Ryan films. As far as I am aware the guideline as written is not causing problems. You are attempting to find a problem for a solution. Betty Logan (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Except if I’m not mistaken, it is precisely a disambiguator for a franchise. If we had an article for the collective Halloween films separately from the main article, that would be at Halloween (film series), wouldn’t it? My only goal here is more clarity in the guideline, and “franchise name” seems to me more direct and simpler than using “series subject” as an equivalent to “unofficial series name.” Also, it makes a ton more sense to italicize a franchise name than a character’s. Help me understand your concern with this proposal: In what scenario would it cause confusion? Would you say Jack Ryan (and his movies, books, etc.) belongs to a franchise that does not share his name? Harry Potter (film series) is part of the Harry Potter franchise. The Burton/Schumacher Batman film series is part of the Batman franchise. Where would we not use the franchise name for the films? — (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I’d like to get more than three editors involved. Any recommendations short of an RFC? — (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Here’s an attempt to better explain how we name unnamed series, dropping the “franchise” idea and preserving “subject,” after Rob Sinden’s comment about such titles. Please let me know if there are any issues with it, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, etc. Even if you would oppose a change for some other reason, please comment on the accuracy (how close my version is to the intended meaning) so I know whether I’m finally reading it right.

For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be Series name (film series), such as Harry Potter (film series); if the series has no official name, choose one commonly used by reliable sources, usually the subject of the film series. When trilogies […] (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this works any better than what we have now. It could be argued that "Harry Potter" isn't an "official" name of the film series either... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Then it’s an unofficial name in common use, in which case it would still be a series name. I thought this formulation would get that across… does it not? — (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Changing the example to The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) should resolve that, at any rate. Any other concerns? — (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, @Betty Logan:, @Robsinden: and @MarnetteD: - please see this at the edit-war notice board. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Archived. — (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
And then resurrected. I honestly don’t know, is that normal for AN/EW reports that go unanswered? — (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So, what is the objection to the above change (seen here)? The Chronicles of Narnia is more of an official series name than Harry Potter, isn’t it? — (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

At least one editor feels that this was a substantive change, which this was not supposed to be. If it is, what is the substantive change? What meaning is lost or added in my revision? — (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: If you have objections, go ahead and voice them. Only one editor has posted about it, and I altered it to address his concerns. — (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent move against guideline of Batman (1989 film series)[edit]

Please see new discussion at Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)#Requested move 19 April 2017. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

Please see Talk:The Conjuring (franchise)#Requested move 25 April 2017. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Outdated example[edit]

@MarnetteD: Regarding this revert, could you please explain the value of using redirect links as examples of titles? Thanks. I tried asking you on your talk page, but I guess you prefer this one. — (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I’m re-reverting under the belief that there’s a wide consensus against using redirects as examples of anything but redirects (or counterexamples). Please correct me if I’m wrong, but otherwise, the reverter’s request just feels like needless hoop-jumping. — (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We have no other examples (at least until the Batman series is moved back to where it should be) so let's leave this one in here so that editors know the correct format to use, even though it redirects at the moment. Note that the example article was only recently merged. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Clarifying the intended meaning[edit]

I propose changing the following in WP:NCF#Film series from:

For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be Series name (film series) or Series subject (film series), such as Harry Potter (film series). […]


For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be Series name (film series), such as The Chronicles of Narnia (film series); if the series has no official name, choose one commonly used by reliable sources, usually the subject of the film series, such as Bourne (film series). […]

The goal of this edit is to clarify the intended meaning without altering it. If you feel it fails to do so, please explain why. — (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I proposed this change a week and a half ago on this page. It met with opposition, but only through WP:NINJA edit-warring, with no responses after an early revision. My rationale for the change is that the present phrasing could easily be interpreted to invite editors to make up their own names (based on a series’ subject) for series that don’t have official titles, without considering any unofficial titles already in use by reliable sources and the general public. This would violate standing Wikipedia policy (which is why I assume it is not an intended meaning). The new phrasing should leave no room for such misinterpretation, but should also not change the originally intended meaning. — (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. I would support it more if the Harry Potter example were retained; without the example, some readers won't be able to tell what you're talking about. I would support it even more if it went on to say, "If there is no name commonly used in reliable sources, use something descriptive". I definitely support removing "subject" from the guideline, as we're trying to identify the film series, not give its properties.
    I looked at the previous discussion; it's not enough about this proposal to use anything from it here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Giraffedata: I did use the Harry Potter example originally, but another editor said it was arguably not an official series title, which Narnia is. Do you think we should add Harry Potter to the end of the addition as a second example? — (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      Well some example of a film series where we don't have an "official" name. If it's arguable whether or not "Harry Potter" is an official name, that might not be the best example. I guess most series do have an official name, but one that might not might be Dirty Harry (film series) since the films are all named differently. Possibly Bourne (film series), American Pie (film series) Die Hard (film series), and National Lampoon's Vacation (film series) are just called that without being officially named that -- I'm just guessing. I don't know how you determine the difference between "official name" and "name everybody calls it, probably even the studio sometimes for convenience". Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
      I agree with everything Herostratus says immediately above. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      I’ve added Bourne to the end of the sentence, since that seems like the most direct example. (Note: I edited it in place because the only comments so far indicated explicit support for such an edit.) Thanks for the suggestions! Incidentally, I would support removing the “subject” language entirely; I only kept it here because editors on this page had been vocally protective of it. — (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Clarifies. Also continue to support if any of the tweaks mentioned above are made. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)