Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

A large number of article titles have the word "(film)" rather than "(movie)" in them. This is something that needs to be mentioned in this article. Jay 13:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pasting this in from a discussion on another talk page.

It would appear that the convention in the English version of Wikipedia is to list artistic works (films in particular) under the English-language title, rather than under the title under which the film was produced, as is done on IMDB. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. It depends on how well it's known. I know we have an article at Life is Beautiful because that's how it's known to English speakers, but we also have Les Misérables. It depends on how it's known.
Known where? The US, English-speaking countries, worldwide, or some other criterion?

The discussion was going nowhere. Hence made the mention of "film" in the page. Jay 10:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] English film names or original titles?

I think this should be discussed, and once is settled, mentioned in the naming conventions page. Either way, a redirect of the other one should be made.

My vote goes to naming the movie with its original name, like on IMDB.

Examples of original title naming: Ringu (vs The Ring) Abre los ojos (vs Open your eyes) Amores perros (vs Love's a Bitch).

Examples of english dubbed title naming: Solaris (vs Solyaris) Three Colors: Blue (vs Trois couleurs: Bleu) Seven Samurai (vs Shichinin no samurai) (there are more for sure).

xDCDx 14:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the general rule for using the name most commonly used by English speakers should apply most of the time. So both Amores perros and Seven Samurai would be preferred. This has been discussed a bit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (foreign languages), and I have just written a bit about the use of foreign language titles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles). I'd love some feedback. How does this get decided? --Samuel Wantman 10:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I go for English-language release titles. If there is more than one (in the case of Amores perros), choose one. If there are none, pick the original edition. If there is only one, pick that one. WhisperToMe 23:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Samuel Wantman's right about the naming conventions, and they surely apply here. Using an English translation of, for example, La Cage aux Folles, Pather Panchali, or Ikiru would be confusing and odd for most readers, as would be Shichinin no samurai or Solyaris. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Films do not divide neatly into "those best known by their untranslated titles" ("Amores Perros") and "those best known by their translated titles" ("Seven Samurai"). Where does "Ai No Corrida" ("In the Realm of the Senses") fall on this scale?
I would do the same as IMDB and use original titles. It doesn't cause a problem with making films harder to find, because of redirects; I look for "Three Colours: Blue" and get redirected to a page titled "Trois couleurs: Bleu" but which says "Three Colours: Blue" prominently in the first paragraph. IMDB does this because a film may have several titles - perhaps even different ones for a UK and US release - so it looks for a single "most canonical" title for the page about the film, and that has to be an original language title.
Interestingly, though, IMDB always uses Roman script rather than, say, Cyrillic or Kanji. I am not sure what the right thing to do here is; I am inclined to think that Roman script is the right choice; this is an English-language encyclopaedia, and Solyaris has a good chance of being recognisable to an English speaker in a way Солярис doesn't. — ciphergoth 11:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Movie" is a bad choice

I object to making Title (movie) the standard for Wikipedia's disambiguating titles for motion pictures. "Movie" as a word is an Americanism, used primarily in North America (and to some extent Australia, I am told), but not commonly used elsewhere, such as in Britain. By making this the standard for Wikipedia, it inserts a U.S.-centric bias that is unnecessary.

The other options seem to be film, cinema and motion picture (Any I am missing?) - and all seem to be in use on various pages.

Personally, I prefer to use "motion picture" when disambiguating an example of this art form. It is descriptive, technical, widely-used and internationally understood. On the downside, it's not as short as the other options.

"Film" is the shortest option, and currently the title of the meta article about the art form, but the word is becoming archaic as motion pictures move into the digital age.

"Cinema" has the advantage of being short, but it isn't commonly used in the U.S. to refer to individual motion pictures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "cinema" is ever used in any variant of the English language to refer to an individual motion picture (e.g. "I watched a really great cinema last night"; "'The Godfather' is one of the most popular cinemas of all time"). In the UK a "cinema" is a venue in which a motion picture is shown, i.e. a movie theatre. ("Last night I went to the cinema to see a film.") AdorableRuffian 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, we have disambiguating titles using all of the above on Wikipedia. There obviously isn't any consensus on this issue, even though a policy has been set. Kevyn 02:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Kevyn on this one. 'Movie' sounds... childish, if you will. It's a word you might see in a popular magazine, but any self-respecting publication would use 'film'. (I'm a U.S. resident, btw). --Smack 04:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would also vote for "film" --Samuel Wantman 10:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I would personally prefer 'film', I don't understand how 'movie' would constitute a USA bias; if that were true, wouldn't the term 'film' then constitute an anti-USA bias? As you suggest, it is used in USA, Canada, and somewhat in Australia, so it isn't necessarily "US-centric". Rather, 'film' could be said to hold a "pro-UK" bias. --Taiichi 21:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
"Film" does indeed constitute a "pro-UK" (or anti-US) bias. Is Wikipedia run like the island in Lord of the Flies? Why can't the same principle that guides spelling guide this choice? --Cultural Freedom talk 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Cultural Freedom, there is further dicussion on this down the page a bit. IMO, (film) is better (movie), since there is one fewer character. I less keystroke to make.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, apparently the fact that many movies are not shot on and are not ever transferred to film was never mentioned...? Are SOV features typically referred to as films? Шизомби 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handling of special movie titles

The above movie titles aren't yet covered in the naming conventions here. The question is - should the main article be at the title used to match the adverstisement/marketing of the movies, or should Wikipedia establish a standard to use a regular format which readers might expect? In any case, we should address this on the conventions page, so people can have something to refer to.

My opinion is that, in the case of the above three, it would be unreasonable to expect a reader or an editor to intuitively type in these titles. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Agreed. All three of the above films have common names by which the general English-speaking public knows them, and these, rather than the typographical accidents of the movie's original title, should be used instead. I want to type in Solaris (movie), not Солярис. I want to type in Prince (artist) and not that dratted symbol. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The standard we've had for oh so many movies is to make the actual, official title (or as close as possible to it subject to Wikipedia naming constraints) the article, and all the common names given to it redirects. For example, I posit that Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back/Empire Strikes Back is an example of an existing convention (the former is the actual page, the latter a redirect). -- Kaszeta 17:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to me to have the articles on pages with the appropriate typography, for neatness of presentation. Good use of redirects would make this attractive and unproblematic. --Peter Farago 16:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, except of course that there are certain titles Wikipedia can't represent for technical reasons, and for those we look for the next-nearest thing. — ciphergoth 20:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)

I was under the impression that a consensus had already been reached to call the media "films". That seems to be the drift in the discussion above. Also, a while ago the template name for stubs got changed from ""movie" to "film", and just this week Category:Movie stubs got renamed Category:Film stubs and Category:Cinema got renamed Category:Film. Most of the articles are called "film", the main article on the topic is called film. So I didn't think I was being very bold when I started renaming stubs from "Title (movie)" to "Title (film)". But I've been asked to stop, and this page is referenced, so I'm asking for a decision to be made.

When possible, I think most of the articles should use the same naming convention, and "movies" is the wrong term. It is an Americanism. Film seems to be an acceptable word for speakers of English all over the world. It also seems to be the word most used in Film articles. It certainly doesn't make sense to have a category and template using "film" and have the article names use "movie". I'd also like to rename the categories called "Cinema in Foo" to "Film in Foo", but I can bring that up at WP:CFD. If I'm off base here. Please let me know. -- Samuel Wantman 05:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So let's vote:

Shall we rename this page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) and re-edit it accordingly?

  • Rename -- Samuel Wantman 05:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. The word movie is universally understood and as yet I see no particular need to move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename I'm not worried about its being an Americanism, but it does have a rather nursery-slang/journalistic feel to it, which many Americans aren't keen on either — at least, not in a reference work like this. (On the other hand, I see no reason to change "Cinema in Foo" to "Film in Foo".) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The "Foo films" categories seem to be numerous and well-populated, so why not stick with them? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  • Rename Seeing that everything else has moved, this seems to make sense. -- Kaszeta 28 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)
  • Oppose Up until recently one could argue that the medium was film, but now that movies are going digital I think it is a better term; in the same way as the British VDU is better acronym than American CRT now that CRTs are on the way out. The still picture preceded the movies which proceded the talkies, so the word movie is not new, and is in use in Britain eg the BBC's Talking Movies programme Philip Baird Shearer 1 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
  • Support. Broader: all movies are films; not all films are movies. –Hajor 2 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
  • Rename FearÉIREANN\(talk) 2 July 2005 14:35 (UTC) Agree with Hajor's point. I think Philip's argument is irrelevant. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 2 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
  • Rename Don't feel strongly either way, but mildly inclined toward "film" as the more professional term, and in light of the recent drift in Category names etc; we should try to be consistent. — Catherine\talk 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. I'll let others "re-edit accordingly". violet/riga (t) 11:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Which 90s Hollywood movie is it in where one of the characters dismisses Europeans as making "films" [(as opposed to commercial movies)]? Philip Baird Shearer 1 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

  • I see PBS's point (in his vote), but the technicalities of the medium don't dictate the name (we still talk about albums, even though recordings aren't kept in large albums, as 78s were). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

If people don't want to go to the ballpark, how are you gonna stop them? Cryptonymius 07:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

I added the disputed tag because this is a major change, and the vote was not posted at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions. Mackerm 06:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a better tag? The factual content of this page surely isn't the issue. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions isn't for posting notices about votes; which page did you mean? It was publicised at Wikipedia:Requested moves ([1]). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the major reasons polls are evil. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What is? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You end up with seven people voting and then acting as if the vote actually represents something meaningful. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with voting; if the seven people had simply given their views and reached consensus, how would that be an improvement? The move was publicised, and only seven people noticed or could be bothered to comment; that's how it works. What's your alternative? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus can change through discussion, the final results of a meaningful poll cannot. One must hold a new poll and start over. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The rational thing to do would be to stick some sort of a mini-disputed tag in the line in Wikipedia:Naming Conventions which is disputed, with a link to the correct discussion page. That's the only way I see it could get proper publicity. Maybe something in Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes . I'll have to think about it a bit. Mackerm 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change

How about just using the form Title (1234) alone, as people will be familiar with from IMDB and many other film-related writing? That will make the titles of all film articles uniform, and avoid the film/movie argument. – Smyth\talk 22:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just 1234 (the year) is not enough information. The article could be about a film, a book, a magazine, a musical... SpNeo 08:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

But films are conventionally written that way, much more so than films, books, musicals or any other media that might share the same name. – Smyth\talk 10:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not a convention with which I'm familiar. It's often used in film listings, for example — but then it's often used in book listings, album listsings, etc., as well. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. – Smyth\talk 16:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A ridiculous move

I heavily oppose the new naming convention ("film" instead of "movie" in the title), which has been arrived at under the guise of a democratic poll. Giving thousands of contributors a fortnight at the beginning of the holiday season without publicizing such a major change properly and then wait for seven (seven!) people to cast their vote is beyond good or evil. I'm sorry if I have been the cause of more work reverting, in a few cases, "film" to "movie", but I had no idea that that ridiculous move had even been proposed. As I already stated, it will mean many many hours of unnecessary and unpaid work for those who tend to stick to, and carry out, the rules laid down by a few. I myself certainly won't take part in the pointless project of renaming what must be thousands of film titles.

I'd like to add that I usually do prefer British to American English, but in this case, renaming a movie "film" so that all references to it become redirects (with quite some double redirects thrown in for the sake of total confusion) will be the responsibility of those—whoever they are—who ruled that seven individuals are enough to decide on that matter. Good luck to you all. <KF> 10:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

  1. The move was correctly advertised (and it's not clear to me what "the holiday season" means here. I've not noticed any diminution of editing at certain times). Where do you think that it should have been but wasn't?
  2. Moves are made on the basis of consensus among those people who discuss it. I've no doubt that you're annoyed that you missed it, but that's going to be true of hundreds of people at various VfDs, RfCs, CfRs, etc.
  3. "Film" isn't British English as opposed to U.S. English "movie"; "film" is used in all varieties of English. "Movie" might be more common in (parts of) the U.S., but that's another matter. "Movie" is also the term preferred by journalists, but that shouldn't affect our usage (in fact it's a good enough reason for being suspicious of it, in my opinion, but that's by the by).
  4. No-one's asking you to be involved in renaming. I doubt that there's going to be a concerted renaming exercise; people will do it as and when they come across a case. As there was already considerable inconsistency of usage, that won't be a problem.
  5. I can't follow your last paragraph, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
My own (admittedly America-centric) impression is that "movie" has a fairly informal, colloquial flavor, while "film" sounds a bit stuck-up and pompous; one goes to a "movie" on a Friday night to be entertained, while one writes pseudo-intellectual, jargon-encrusted critiques of a "film" for an academic journal. I'm not sure if there exists a truly neutral term for the medium. *Dan* 15:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
That is localised, I think. It's certainly not the case here, nor in most other English-speaking countries so far as I can tell; "film" is the ordinary, everyday, colloquial term. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • shrug* decisions have to be made somehow. The justification given seems sensible. I agree with Mel Etitis — ciphergoth 15:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The move makes a lot of sense. 'Film' and 'movie' are correct expressions in both British and American English. 'Film' however is the more formal term, which is why it should be used to disambiguate. Nobbie 12:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation of films by "nationality/language"

I frown upon this. The only cases where an extra disambiguation convention would be needed would be rare ones where more than one notable film of the same title is released the same year. Rather than explore the potentially difficult question of what defines the nationality of a film, I would suggest:

  • If a film named Foo is released next year, it goes under "Foo (film)" for the time being.
  • If two films named Foo are released in 2007, the existing "Foo (film)" gets moved to "Foo (2006 film)", and the new articles are created at "Foo (Tarantino film)" and "Foo (Bertolucci film)", assuming of course that neither director has a previous film of the same title.

Then we'll never have to argue over which sovereign nation a film, by an Italian director, but set in France and starring American actors speaking Esperanto, actually "belongs to".

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the frown. Are there many cases of this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

to my knowledge, no, but the final paragraph Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) states:

If two films in different languages have the same name they can be disambiguated
on their language name. E.g., add (French film), or if necessary (1972 French film),
to the title.

and I think this suggestion should be removed per the reasons I stated. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree too, so I remove. If anything in this vein would still be necessary I'd propose something like this:

If two different films of the same year have the same title, they are further disambiguated by the director's name, like this: Salome (Strauss 1923 film) IMDb and Salome (Bryant 1923 film) IMDb

Note that the "by nationality" wouldn't work for the films in the example, while both were released in the USA.
Nonetheless, the example is quirky: actually the Bryant film was released as Salomé in the USA, and has a wikipedia article at Salomé (1923 film) (the other film is Salome throughout, so could be at Salome (1923 film), which is now a redirect to the "Salomé" 1923 film).
I don't think, however, the Strauss film would get a separate wikipedia article in the forseeable future, while much less notorious than the Bryant film.
In a funny way, however, the example of these two films shows that disambiguating by director *exclusively* (that is without mentioning *year* and "film") wouldn't work: Salome (Strauss), would of course need to redirect to Salome (opera) - note that also filmic versions of the Strauss opera exist, so Salome (Strauss film) might be misunderstood as, for example, Salome (1974 film) IMDb: "Undoubtedly the finest film performance of the Strauss Opera".
All in all, unless someone comes up with a better example than the two 1923 Salome/Salomé films, I wouldn't mention the "additional disambiguation by director" in the guideline yet. --Francis Schonken 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for foreign films

I originally posted this in the Wikiproject and got almost nil response even after a plea for response. I would like to see the project page updated with whatever consensus is arrived at here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if this has been dealt with earlier, but is there a convention for naming foreign films? I've seen both where the title is the original release name in the country of origin (L'homme du train), and where it is the English release title (Manon of the Springs). Most articles are good in that they provide redirects for the English release title and the foreign title but it is strange to see a title (Le Salaire de la Peur) with an release poster in English. There needs to be some consistency either way, though I personally favor the English release title in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). See Category:Films by country for examples of both, though French films seems to have the most movies with original release name. If there isn't a policy then a straw poll should be done to see which is prefered. Whatever is decided should also go into the naming conventions policy. Thanks --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest, but am I going to get any response on this?! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd vote for using English for the article's title, with a redirect from the original-language title. And if there's no image of the original-language poster available, I think the English poster should be used only if the film has been translated and re-released in English. Don't know if this makes sense, but it's my $.02. Cheers, Her Pegship 15:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
My vote is for the English title. We're also having a similar discussion about this on a book page, about whether the article title should be "Polish Biographical Dictionary" or "Polski Slownik Biograficzny": Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary#RfC: Request for Comment. I came to this page to see if there was a consensus on film names, but it looks like things are even more confusing for movies. Elonka 01:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO the original title is preferable if it it's fairly well known and not totally incomprehensible to an English speaker. E.g. "Les Miserables" and "Fucking Åmål" are comprehensible. There's some discussion about this on latter one's talk page. Coffee2theorems 19:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documentaries

I changed several (movie) to (film) in Richard Gere's filmography. However, I found a documentary called Reporters from 1981, and this link redirects to journalist. I was unable to find any naming convention on documentaries, so I renamed the link Reporters (film). But I was wondering if it should be Reporters (documentary) instead. Tskoge 10:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple similarly-titled films in the same year

I was trying to dab Rain in Ellen Muth's filmography to a 2001 film, but Rain (film) was not the one I was looking for, and was also made in 2001. So I did Rain (<director> film) instead. It's still a red link. Suggestions? --Christopherlin 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television movies

There is an ongoing discussion about how television movies should be named. The main contention is that whether TV movies should be handled separately and be titled Movie name (TV movie) or treated under the film naming convention. Please leave comments at the original discussion. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting an article into book and film articles

Over at Talk:From Hell there is currently a discussion about whether the film belongs in its own article. I was looking for a guideline on that topic, but I haven't been able to find one. This seems like a good place to ask-- is there a guideline? Lord Bodak 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's no official suggestion, but my own unofficial guideline is to split if both articles are not stubs as a result. YMMV though, because everyone's definition of stub is different but I think it is a good rule of thumb. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is a good idea to split the entries if either the film or the book had it's own unique cultural contribution, whether or not the result would be a stub. Academy Award (and Palme d'Or and Goldene Baer etc.) winners absolutely should have their own page, but that shouldn't be the only criterium. For example, the score from Fahrenheit 451 (film) influenced the Beatles, completely independant of the book.

Ionesco 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] film series questions

Is there an agreed upon convention for naming film series articles? I mean, should it be X (film series), X (series), X series, X film series, or something entirely different? Also, when creating articles relating to film series, should the article for the first title in the series be expanded to include information about the whole series (and then the individual titles spun out if it grows too large), or should individual articles for individual films in the series be created from the start from the start? Any help would be appreciated. --Myles Long 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anybody have any thoughts on Myles' comments? Шизомби 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not put it to a vote? Lady Aleena 04:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Sign where you agree...

  1. Question 1: How should we title film series articles?
    1. X (film series)
    2. X (series)
    3. X film series
    4. X series
  2. Question 2: Should the article of the first film in the series also be the series article?
    • Yes

[edit] Comments

I am leaning towards X (film series), but only if we've decided that shot on video (SOV) features are also to be called films, despite not being on film? Шизомби 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would go with that. I would include anything shot digitally. The big thing now is that some films in the future might not even be on real film, just its digital alternative.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am working on something that is related to this. So, the sooner that a decision can be made, the better, or should I just be bold and make a decision on my own. :)
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I've become overly cautious in my [not so old] age...but I'd let it wait until the end of the week, in case someone disagrees and wants to pick on us for jumping the gun. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As Inigo Mantoya said in The Princess Bride - "I hate waiting"
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Question 2 - I'm not sure if the question as stated is the same as the one Myles Long or I had in mind. There are some articles like Leprechaun (film) which are about the first film and are also about the series and sequels since articles for those haven't been created yet. With Return of the Living Dead, there's articles for the first three films and a Return of the Living Dead which also covers the 4th and 5th sequels which do not have articles. If an article about the first film in a series should only be about that one film, then for e.g. Leprechaun, stubs would need to be created for the sequels and the sequel info taken out), or it should be split into Leprechaun (film) and Leprechaun (film series). Or to pick a series which has no articles, Witchcraft. When work begins on that, should it start with the creation of Witchcraft (film) or Witchcraft (film series)? Шизомби 00:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 2 is to indicate that if there aren't any articles, or only an article about 1 film in the series, should that article also cover the entire series until such time as other films are added. I think. IMO, articles about a film should only be about the film, not the entire series.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 06:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have a winner for Question 1. Should I write it up and put it on the project page?
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 11:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My take is - yes, for Question 1. As for Question 2 - each individual film should have its own article per Lady Aleena, even if it's a stub. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two films, same name, same year! What to do?

This seems to be a HUGE oversight of the naming conventions. What to do if there are two films with the same name, in the same year? For example, there were two films called Aladdin released in 1992; one by Disney and one by GoodTimes Animation. Here's the IMDB page for the 2nd one: [2]. Maybe we can do something similar to what IMDB does ("Film title (1992 film/I)", "Film title (1992 film/II)". Are there any objections to this? If there aren't, I'll start doing this myself. I'm not too hopefull about getting a reply, since this same question was asked on this very board earlier and nobody answered. So I'll do this myself if nobody replies within a few days. Esn 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My thought would be "Aladdin (1992 Disney film)" and "Aladdin (1992 GoodTimes film)", but that's just my opinion. Lord Bodak 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Are they both USA?
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they're both American films. The article in question was first named Aladdin (1992 film II) and then moved by someone to Aladdin (Golden Films film). I myself preffer the first title, because what happens if Golden Films makes ANOTHER Aladdin film on another year? Sure, it's not likely but something like that could conceivably happen - the first option prevents anything like that from being a problem.
But anyway... I think that there should really be something about this in the main article. Esn 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film series

Does the convention ban the use of other names - such as trilogy ? -- Beardo 00:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Determining the official title of a film

I was looking around for an answer to this question, and instead found a number of conflicting discussions, so I thought I'd ask here and see if the guidelines could be clarified on this point. Mainly, I'm wondering by what criteria we determine the "official" name of a film when it is inconsistantly represented in various sources. I see there's been discussion of "Clerks." above, and over at that article, the consensus has been roughly in favor of keeping the period at the end of the title in order to represent the film's official name. In that example, the film's title card uses "Clerks.", the movie poster uses "cLeRKs", and the film's original script appears to use "Clerks", which is what I've seen the film most commonly called in reviews and other outside sources. Is there a way we can add to this guideline to be more clear on what the most official source is? The MoS for trademarks states that we should avoid using unconventional capitalization or typography in the names of products and corporations. I see where that's different from film, but films do also seem to skate the line between artistic work and product, and often onscreen representation of titles seem to fall under the umbrella of "graphic logos", especially titles which are in all caps. It seems like the whole thing could use some clarification. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed above at #English film names or original titles? and #Naming conventions for foreign films, but with no clear result. My own observation is that if we use IMDb's article title (if English) or its primary English title (if not), we meet the general WP guidelines of "the most commonly-known name in the English-speaking world" and "sourced information", especially as IMDb is almost certainly the best-known global source for film information (Alexa ranking "34" as of this post). Thus, we have Clerks. (with punctuation) instead of Clerks (without). But like anything else on Wikipedia, this is hardly a rigid rule. We also currently have The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies instead of IMDb's The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?, with trailing punctuation. With Wikipedia, as with life, we must learn to live with ambiguity and unresolved disagreements — and for much the same reason. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-disambiguation of film titles

The current wording of the guideline has been construed to mean that articles about films should have the (film) suffix if there is another topic of the same name, even if that topic does not have an article on Wikipedia:

Where a film or book title is unique or virtually unique, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film title is far and away the most common accepted meaning of the word or phrase, title the film article like this: Film Title (film).

In most of Wikipedia, that is not the common practice. It is not necessary to "pre-disambiguate", to pre-emptively add the suffix in case another article of the same name may be created in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Moving articles and adding the suffix, when and if it becomes necessary is not difficult.

I therefore propose the following changes:

Where a film or book title is unique or virtually unique When there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with an existing Wikipedia article, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the film. But where it is the same as a subject in science, a novel, or whatever, unless the film is far and away the most common accepted meaning of the word or phrase the primary topic for that name, title the film article like this: Film Title (film).

Thoughts? -Anþony 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is currently being hotly debated in another topic area ... a discussion to which you are a party, I see; see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
True, I am a party to the mediation and I have been an active participant in the debate. I believe strongly pre-disambiguation goes against WP:DAB, so I have advocated a similar position both here and there. However, the primary focus in the WP:TV-NC mediation is what kind of exceptions to the guideline should be allowed. This guideline is not listed as an article involved in the mediation and the mediation will not decide the issue of pre-disambiguation in general.
WP:TV-NC is inline with the language I have proposed here and even those disputing the guideline are not proposing to change it significantly. In my view, the guidelines really have nothing to do with each other except that they should both comply with WP:DAB. Barring an escalation to ArbCom and a very broad decision affecting all of Wikipedia, the results of that dispute will probably not affect this guideline at all. – Anþony talk 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
After several weeks, no one has really come up with a reason not to include the language, so I've gone ahead with my changes. I don't really think it's controversial in that it just defers to the standard set by WP:DAB rather than implying tougher criteria for films to be primary topics. – Anþony talk 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a similar discussion going on at Talk:the Wicker Man. I think that where an original film is the original work of art and other uses mere derivitives (and quite a poor one in this case) then the original deserves primary topic disambiguation. Jooler 09:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original wording, simply because I've experienced several times what an absolute, utter pain in the ass it can be to fix all the links to an article if it was created on the name of something else which should receive primary consideration. "Moving articles and adding the suffix, when and if it becomes necessary is not difficult"? Maybe you've been lucky - I've had cases where I had to manually go through over a hundred links (in one case it was several hundred, and I simply gave up). I think that if there's a good reason to believe that there will eventually be an article other than that given film at a certain name, the qualifier should be added. For example, if a search for your film title on IMDB results in several films, several of which seem to be well-known (judging by the number of people who rated them), perhaps even more well-known than yours, then you would be fair to assume that they will eventually have articles on wikipedia. It is then your duty to avoid misleading people (many of whom will likely search for that title expecting to find something else) and save someone in the future the extra work by adding the suffix and prefferably creating the disambiguation page yourself, even if those films don't yet have articles. This has nothing to do with crystal-ballism, and everything to do with presenting accurate information to the reader as well as encouraging others to create those articles. Of course, some common sense has to be used here - it can be appropriate sometimes to just mention the other meanings in the same article rather than create a separate disambiguation page at the original name (if the derivate work such as a film is far more well-known than the book that it is based upon, ie. Hedgehog in the Fog). Esn 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign-language films

In case anyone's wondering, this stemmed from a discussion here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Naming conventions, and it looks like it was already covered at the top of this page. Doctor Sunshine 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, a guideline is required to be "authorized by consensus", and I see no such consensus in the above (or any other) discussion on this matter. While I don't necessarily disagree with what you've written, there are certainly others who seem to prefer a similar system to IMDb, and in any case it still leaves a grey area of films where both the native and English name could equally be seen as being the most common. This guideline should be moved here for proper debate. PC78 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't anything new, it's a combination of existing policies, WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE. Plus, it's been discussed on this page, at least four times at the film project page, I've discussed any number of times – including with you – and it's doubtlessly been discussed countless times by other users. It's here to be referenced concisely. Since I know what you're referring to, and have discussed it with you seemingly endless, I can tell you that this sort of thing is rare enough that it can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Please do some research and if you can prove that the film title Kairo is used more or as often as Pulse by English-language readers, please present your evidence in the appropriate spot. Namely Talk:Pulse (2001 film). Doctor Sunshine 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussed, yes, but as I said with no clear consensus. And please don't tell me what I'm referring to; that's one example, yes, but there are certainly others and I was quite clearly speaking generally. Don't try and turn my above concern into something it isn't. PC78 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition, you say this sort of thing is rare, but I don't see how you can say such a thing with any kind of authority. You yourself are currently engaged in at least two debates regarding this issue over at Requested Moves, where your moves/requests have been strongly contested. This alone should tell you that the issue is not so straightforward as you would like to think. PC78 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is still not dealing with one core issue: Films can have several English titles. It is not neutral to favour US title over the UK title, or the other way round. This is the case on Talk:Tirez sur le pianiste, where UK title is different from the North American one. Many mainstream films have at least two-three different titles and, for example, many 70's-80's Italian genre films have been released with half a dozen English names. The original title can work as a compromise. Prolog 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of thing I've been arguing elsewhere. If there's any doubt over which title should be used, then personally I think we should show a preference for the original title. Others may disagree, but that's my two cents. PC78 10:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because there are several translations in use doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one which is more overwhelmingly in use than the others. The most common title should be used, regardless of whether it's the original language or not. Girolamo Savonarola 11:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Not what I'm saying. I certainly don't dispute that we should use the common title of a film, but at least sometimes it's not always clear which the common title is. PC78 11:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The rationale is pretty clear about why the more common title should be used. I understand your desire to use the original language in every case but it's to the detriment of the article being most easily found, and recognized. NPOV would only be broken if it was said that the English title is overall better than the native title, which would be silly and no one is implying that. It's common practice to list something first, give it more space, etc., if it's more common, that does not break NPOV. If a film has multiply English titles there's no harm in listing them too when appropriate but there's always a more common title. Doctor Sunshine 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is often no way to determine which English title is more common, if for example, the US uses X and the UK uses Y. Surely we can't favour the US one just because it usually gets more Google hits. Prolog 23:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No one said Wikipedia was perfect. Google, Rotten Tomatoes, amazon.com, these are the best tools we have. If you can find a better way, we're all ears. Doctor Sunshine 01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Determining the most common title by using only US-based websites is not a good idea for neutrality reasons. If this was the American Wikipedia, then it would work and there wouldn't be any problem. Prolog 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about this proposal: If the foreign title is not well-known in the English-speaking world, there are several English-language titles, and it is not clear that one of them is overwhelmingly more well-known than the others, the earliest English-language title should be used. Esn 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. It's pretty clear and leaves less room for personal judgment, and the release dates can usually be found on several sources. Prolog 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That would just creates an unnecessary loophole where the more common title might not be used. We've already got a working policy to settle disputes, namely voting. Doctor Sunshine 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so let's say an American film was released theatrically under a certain title. Then, after a while, it was released on one of those dollar-DVDs under a different title and sold a lot of copies at Wal-Mart - more people bought a DVD at Wal-Mart than saw it in theatres. Since its title on the cheapie DVD is now more well-known than the theatrical title, would you prefer that that be the title of the article? Esn 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, yes. The more common title. Things change all the time. Would you rather Star Wars drop the Episode bit? My vote's we just trust in democracy for now. Doctor Sunshine 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
How do you define "most common"? Most common historically? Used in the most English-speaking countries (US vs. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales vs. Canada vs. Australia etc.)? Most Google hits? Most Yahoo hits? It's not encyclopedic to switch titles after every trend. Prolog 02:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be jumping in so late, but there is a long standing consensus about matters like this. Common practice is to use the "most commonly used name" or in other words, the name that would be most recognizable to speakers of English. The most common name might be in another language, as several foreign films are. If there is more than one common name, and there is disagreement which one is more common, the common practice is to leave which ever one already exists and create a redirect from the other. This is similar to the problems that arise related to spelling differences between the UK and US. The reason for this practice, is that it helps maintain civility, and so we don't spend endless hours arguing about such things. If two names are closely just as common it really doesn't matter which one is used and which one becomes a redirect. Does this help? -- Samuel Wantman 04:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would help if I could see some evidence for such a consensus - are there any links I could follow?
Anyway, here's a slightly modified proposal: If it is unclear which English-language name the film is more commonly known by, the earliest one should be given priority. Unless the later name is now the official one (as in the case of "Star Wars" vs. "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope). Esn 04:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are only two possible situations of many. For example often a foreign film will be seen under it's foreign name, then later a crudely translated title, then again under a professional or just alternate translation. Usually the best title will catch on but often it can get muddy. For example, one of the two debates that helped start this was Shoot the Piano Player. I prefer that title as it's most commonly used (by my research) and captures the pulpy feel of the American novel it was based on. Prolog prefers Tirez sur le pianiste, the original French title, or Shoot the Pianist, which is used (along with the Shoot the Piano Player) in the UK. (The other debate is over the Japanese Pulse or Kairo.) The existing guideline is the result of practical application over the past however many years and simply rewriting the rules would be an ordeal, not to mention how many people actually read them? To address Prolog's comment, it's not unencyclopedic to contain the most up to date information. This type of thing crops up only rarely (often decades apart) on films usually of low or moderate popularity or cult appeal. Doctor Sunshine 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are citations for previous consensus: WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE (previously cited above) for the use of English, and there is WP:ENGVAR which says "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." It goe on to say, "Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page." This is pretty much what I was saying above. --Samuel Wantman 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Esn, Prolog, if you're still there, I stumbled across something pertinent. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Shame we didn't find this weeks ago. Doctor Sunshine 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language titles revisited

I have just rewritten the section on foreign language film titles, which was rather vague and unclear. I haven't changed the guidelines, but I hope I have clarified what was only implied before. Feel free to rework and/or discuss what I've done.

  • I've stressed the need to put both native and English titles in bold.
  • I've stressed that the native title should be used if there is no single English language title commonly used
  • I've stressed that 'commonly used titles' means the titles under which the film is released theatrically or on video (this is the only way to avoid POV on this issue, I think)

Cop 633 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Two concerns, we don't seem to have consensus on putting bracketed native language titles in bold, it's almost never done for Asian and Slavic languages and only hit and miss everywhere else. I'd suggest that for non-latin charactered titles this is because it's clear this is an alternate title and bolding can make the information unintelligible and/or confusing. For the rest, I haven't been bolding them because, really, Film (Language: Fïlm) is just as clear as Film (Language: Fïlm) and is consistent with the Japanese, Chinese, Russian titling, etc.
Second, a huge number of foreign films have alternate titles, even within the same country, and defaulting to the a less common native title because there's choices contravenes the rationale here and amounts to a politically correct compromise. We have a style guideline, WP:ENGVAR, with applicable points (assessing regional ties, failing that, selecting a title common to all, failing that, following the first contributor) if the title comes to a debate. I'm going to use a ridiculous example but, resorting to Shichinin no samurai because we can't agree wheither to slap a The in front of Seven Samurai doesn't do anyone any good. (Better examples would come from the America vs. the UK type deals, already rampant through Wikipedia.)
It may not hurt to run this by the film project. Your third emphasis is a great addition and the rest of your clarifications I wholeheartedly endorse. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will run it by the Wikiproject.

  • Bolding: the Manual of Style seems to indicate that bolding should be used for variant titles as well as for the main article title. I agree that this seems to be avoided for non-Latin alphabets, presumably because it can make them read badly; perhaps we could add a note about that in the guidelines.
  • You raise a good point about variant English titles. I personally have no issue with settling on the US title in such disputes, simply because the population of the US is higher, making it the 'commonest title', but I suspect some Wikipedians would be less easygoing.

Cop 633 21:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think that's a good idea regarding the bolding. And from personal experience, yes, you're right on count number two. That's why I like the diplomatic tone of ENGVAR, it allows for a case by case basis but offers suggestions for for stalemates. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On formatting: without having gone through all the discussions and guideline details, I have been bolding titles in the following way: Title (Lang. Title). In the beginning I had also been bolding non-latin characters, where given (chinese etc), but then I decided against it and bold only the latin interpretation of the foreign title. If I see additional aka titles bolded, I remove to simple italic.

I'm working on a Manual of Style for Portugal at the minute, and I have been giving this some though. my suggestion is simple: if the film was released and re-titled in english, use the english title, otherwise use the original one. for foreign titles, my suggestion is: Original title of the film (en:Translation of the title) if the translation makes sense. Other wise Original title of the film (Lit:Nonsense translation of the title - ultra-short explanation). Which is the same way I suggest for when foreign words are to be introduced and kept in an article Galf 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization in titles

Another problem has appeared in relation to the capitalization of foreign titles. There have been some discussions and disagreements about it in user talk pages. I am not sure I can sum it all up very clearly, so I will bring it up here and call the involved editors to fill-in the details. In most French, Italian, Spanish titles, we capitalize the first word and all the rest remains lowercase. In German, of course this is a mistake, so there we captalize nouns. User Luigibob and E.S.Blofeld have been discussing about Argentine films and deem it correct to capitalize as we do in English titles. I am also in agreement, but I know that this means we would have to apply it to more languages, to stay consistent and I also know this involves a lot of work. This issue needs to be discussed so that a wider consensus is reached. Hoverfish Talk 08:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not able to comment about French and Italian, but practice in Spanish is to capitalise only the first letter of a title and proper nouns, so English-style capitalisation in Spanish titles is simply wrong. I think if we're going to allow titles in non-English languages (which we clearly must, as not all texts have a ready English-language equivalent) then those titles should be written according to the orthographic conventions of that language. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case, Spanish titles would have to be lowercase, like IMDb has it. In WP France/Naming conventions they also suggest the same rule. However, if Luigibob can provide us some indication that Argentine films, unlike other Spanish-language countries, have every word capitalized in film titles, I would agree on some flexibility. I will drop a word in some WPs to drop us a line, if they don't have it stated in their naming conventions. Hoverfish Talk 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Argentina doesn't differ from any other Spanish-speaking country in this regard. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. In Portuguese the stanadard is to capitalize everything, except connective words "Recordações da Casa Amarela" would be the correct title. This applies to any work title in the portuguese language.Galf 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Standard in Swedish is to capitalise only the first letter (unless of course the title is in English or contains proper nouns), but I don't think Swedish movies are a big problem, a large majority of them have an English title as well (judging by a Category:Swedish films). – Elisson • T • C • 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Same in Italy: only the first letter. Although there are a few exceptions. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish titles are sometimes capitalized, but the norm is to put them as anz normal sentence with only the first letter capitalized, as well as anz names in it. --Mariano(t/c) 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Boalch. When dealing with non-English languages, titles in those languages should be written according to the orthographic conventions of that language. Also, I can confirm that what Galf stated regarding the Portuguese convention for titles is true. Hope that helps.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be late in this confab. In one sense the argument can be considered moot since many foreign films should be retitled in their Englisn name. See: WP:UE. It should be remembered that this is an English encyclopedia and that "the convention in the Spanish language is that only the first word in a title and proper nouns are capitalised" is meaningless in an English encyclopedia. We should keep the proper English conventions uniform: Portuguese, English, Argentine, whatever. I have edited most, if not all, the "New Argentine Cinema" films to arguably B status. And I've found the film reviews in my work, most (if not all) state the names of the films in English or if in Spanish with caps as is the norm in English. This includes the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, and others. I should have changed the names to English then but that is another story.

Also, I did not appreciate the recent wide name change of films with the bold understanding that the editor had policy under his/her belt. Clearly not, since we are on this page.

As for IMDb: they are so international, they do not have an ecyclopedia mind-set. They might do it because it might cross well with their other language IMDb's. They are not and never should be a barometer of what is wise in an encyclopedia; the New York Times, yes, IMDb, no.

Finally, I am Latino and can appreciate the cultural differences. I add accents, tildes, and such on the actors, titles, and such when I edit. At this point we are dealing with titles and I've stated my case. More due in due course, needless to say. Best. Luigibob 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Where native titles are used I'd been going by the IMDb system too but have noticed that it's not used in professional written media. Likely to save their editors some hassle as it'd be construed as an error by much of their general readership and seem unprofessional. Really, if a foreign language title is more common there will be a common capitalization style as well which, by current policy, should be what we're using and that seems to be the standard English system. However, a guideline may be useful. Wikipedia seems to take unkindly to unusual stylizations (some of the time), such as Health (should be HealtH) and Izo (should be IZO), in favour of uniformity. I agree something should be added to the policy but we'll need consensus first. Perhaps a list of pros and cons will help. Please feel free to add points. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Le Système Anglais de Capitalisation Le Système indigène de capitalisation
Pros Cons Pros Cons
Professional, won't be mistaken for a mistake Honours original language style, keeps purists happy Will require individual language guides in policy, probable instruction creep
Easy for editors to follow, requires no specialized knowledge

You are combining here the capitalization in foreign titles with using the English version. I don't think we are arguing between the two. We have to make it clear that when a foreign film is known under one distinct name in the Englisg-speaking world, we should use its English name. However there are cases where the foreign name is most well known (or the only known title), cases where the British and/or Australian translated title differ significantly from the American translation (so to avoid confusion, the foreign title may be used) and cases where a foreign film hardly ever made it to the English-language world. In these cases (and we should make sure to limit foreign titles to such cases only) we still have to deal with capitalization. So here we should rather be making clear HOW to capitalize. Please, check the List of French films, which I am compiling lately. The titles are given as in the articles, so the inconsistency in capitalizing and the need to make a big and carefully selective cleanup as for which titles should be turned to English and which not, is quite obvious. Hoverfish Talk 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to combine the issues, hopefully I've made the table more clear now. I'm leaning towards the English language method. And I agree we need a mass title clean up. Excellent work on the French list by the way. I thought those lists tables might have too much information but it looks really classy. Doctor Sunshine talk 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Luigibob, you argue that '"the convention in the Spanish language is that only the first word in a title and proper nouns are capitalised" is meaningless in an English encyclopedia. We should keep the proper English conventions uniform'. I would contest this: if we're going to have an article named for a foreign-language title, as should happen occasionally (Mein Kampf is an obvious example of a work much better known by its source-language title, for instance), then we should make sure we get the capitalisation right according to the conventions of that language. In fact, actually you contradict yourself: you say that you 'add accents, tildes, and such on the actors, titles, and such' when editing and these diacritics are hardly in line with normal 'English conventions', since the English orthographic system doesn't use them. Congratulations for working to get spelling right, but I would suggest that we need to get capitalisation right too. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/m/Wikipedia_talk%7ENaming_conventions_%28films%29_141e.html"