Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/Move request

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. I have noted the request for more discussion time here, and feel free to continue discussing the ramifications of the title if you wish, but it is clear that no consensus to move the page will come out of this move request. Both titles are clearly valid, but only one is established, and stability is an important factor when considering a title change. For the record, I am American. Dekimasuよ! 08:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) → Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) — Since the film is an American production (produced by Warner Bros. based in Burbank, California), it should probably be moved to it's American title. —Reginmund 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Support - Per reasons given (I'm not trying to be biased, I am a Briton anyway) Reginmund 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - For reasons previously stated. Wiki is the only source I have found with this naming convention. ZouBEini 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• 'Comment As things stand, it is clear that the book and film articles are talking about the same 'thing', but as film or book versions. (I'm not voting, as I feel biased. However, Wiki is far from being the only place I've seen this film with 'Philosopher's' in the title. I rarely stray into areas where it is refered to otherwise.) Skittle 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The movie is known world-wide as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the only difference being in the U.S. The book it is based on is also best known by the same title. (Even Canada knows the movie, the DVDs, and everything else related to it as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per above, the film is known worldwide as Philosopher's Stone. This is not the American Wikipedia. Alientraveller 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since the film has two titles, it seems to me that it makes more sense that the title of the film should correlate with the title of the book. Full disclosure: I am an American. ●DanMS • Talk 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, this film was a British production funded by an American company and as such should retain the British title. It is the most well known title. Woodym555 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, book and film is known worldwide as Philosopher's Stone. All of the other Harry Potter articles (books, characters, magic etc) are written in BrE due to the fact that the books and author are British and were originally published in the UK; surely the films also fall under the same HP sphere. Using the production house as justification to circumvent this seems like a stretch. Daggoth | Talk 03:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - It is a FACT that this is an AMERICAN MOVIE called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in AMERICA based on a BRITISH BOOK called HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. Period. 71.145.148.97 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").
• Strong oppose film name should follow book article title, and I Daggoth's argument. PageantUpdater 08:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The majority of the cast is British, the film is set in Britain etc etc. Number 57 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- No source given this is an American film. Matthew 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - regardless of the American/British question, the naming conventions state that it should be called its most common English-language title. That is unquestionably Philosopher, as it was released as such to everywhere outside of the US as that. (I too am an American.) Girolamo Savonarola 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Happy Potter is British, and arguable all Potter pages should use the British not American version. Otherwise, if the US does have a claim over this page, it is not clear cut, so we should go back to the original versions. This page has been at "Philosopher's Stone" since its earliest days. -- Beardo 05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• oppose. thought this was decided long ago. We have elected to follow british variant spelling, including title, on the hp articles. In this particular case even Rowling is now on record as regretting that she permitted the US title to be changed. Since we are arguing about how the film was made, Rowling insisted that the actors be british and it was made in the UK. Sandpiper 09:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - British writer, British Cast, story set in Britian, filmed in Britain, etc. Should definitely retain the original, British, title for both the film and the book. - fchd 19:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This has been discussed zillions of times before, this being the most recent time. See WP:ENGVAR. This has strong national ties to Britain and retains the existing variety. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Most common English-language title is Philosopher's Stone. SuperCoolAl 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; it was an Anglo-American production, and should retain the original title, derived from the title of the original edition of the book. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; don't beleive i need to state any reasons. Philbuck222 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The film may have been funded by Warners, and directed by an American, but many companies across the world fund different films. George Lucas and Francis Coppola funded a Kurosawa film, but it isn't American. The Lord of the Rings was made in New Zealand (written, shot, edited, etc), and was only funded by an American studio. The Harry Potter films, likewise, are made in Britain. Alientraveller 19:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this suggested move is in opposition to consensus clearly made years ago on the naming of the book and film, so the America-biased editor may be considered disruptive. Alientraveller 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Disruptive? That is wrong (I don't speculate, unlike you). Just because I suggested a move, doesn't mean that I am disruptive. I had also previously stated that I am not American biased as I feel this article should be renamed in light of the country that made it. I am a Briton by the way. There is no policy against suggesting a move request again. Don't make up your own rules. The Lord of the Rings was only filmed in New Zealand but was produced by New Line in New York. "George Lucas" and "Francis Coppola" are not studios by the way. They may have funded it but it was probably produced in the studio of that country. The "Harry Potter" films may have been shot in the U.K. but are made by an American studio. Just because a film was released with a certain title around the world, doesn't mean that it is it's original title. The film was produced by an American studio and is therefore American. Do your research next time before you make false accusations again. Reginmund 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not find Reginmund’s move request to be disruptive. Also please note that although Reginmund would like to have the article renamed, he has twice reverted efforts by a vandal to redirect the article to ...Philosopher’s Stone. ●DanMS • Talk 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - while I certainly don't support the proposal, there is no harm done in discussing it. Let's keep this focused on the title, not the editor. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the article is named already as Philosopher's Stone, this indicates consensus with book and film ages ago. Secondly, it is a British film, funded by an American studio, but beyond that it is primarily British. Would you class the third film as Mexican because of its director? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alientraveller (talk • contribs) 22 July 2007

That would be funny, since Sony is a Japanese corporation...does that make Spider-Man a japanese film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um, what was the title of the film in other countries?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought wiki articles were written for the benefit of the reader. I didn't expect such passionate sentiments of ownership, sarcasm, and what appears to be border-line name calling simply because a proposal was made. I am American and own a film entitled, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", otherwise I would not have bothered to vote. When the reader searches for HPSS, "HP and the Philosopher's Stone" is listed instead. I understand the logic used when the film was named thusly in the US, but readers new to HP would be confused until they opened and read the HPPS article (for which they were not looking). Surely there is a more intuitive way for them to find the page being sought. ZouBEini 22:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem, but I don't see how the suggested move solves it. I am an Australian and own a film entitled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". If the the suggested move is implemented, I would then be shown a page called "Sorcerer's Stone" instead, which I am not looking for. Surely this would be just as confusing? Shifting the problem to another part of the world doesn't seem like a satisfactory solution. Daggoth | Talk 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the article is named already as Philosopher's Stone, this indicates consensus with book and film ages ago. Secondly, it is a British film, funded by an American studio, but beyond that it is primarily British. Would you class the third film as Mexican because of its director? - Alientraveller

We all have the right to consensus here. It is not a British film just because it was made from a British novel. That doesn't make The Picture of Dorian Gray a British film, it is American. Secondly, you have no idea what you are voting on. I have made it clear several times that a film's nationality is based on the nationality of the studio that produced it, not the nationality of the director. The African Queen is a British film that just happens to be directed by an American.

That would be funny, since Sony is a Japanese corporation...does that make Spider-Man a japanese film? -Bignole

Do your research. It was distributed by Sony but produced by Columbia. So far, nobody that opposes this move has given me a reason as to why this film is "British". Don't call me biased again because I am British too. Reginmund 22:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who do you think owns Columbia?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has given you a reason? No one seems to have answered my initial question. "What is the film called in other countries?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the titles under other languages. If you are referring to the Anglosphere, it was released as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the U.S., Canada, and The Bahamas. It was released as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the U.K., Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. Regardless, this isn't about how it is better known, it shouldn't be. It is about what studio that produced the film. I still have no reason as to why it should be kept. As for Columbia, it is owned by Sony but Columbia is based and operated in the United States. Sheesh! Can you do some research before you make another half-assed rebuttal? And don't post it between what I write. I don't want to have to go on a safari in between the lines. Reginmund 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's both. There really isn't one determining factor, as Heyday Films always produced the film, and they are British. Do you know how much each company put into the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One small point but the film was NOT called Sorrcerer's Stone in Canada. As Evidence here is the webpage for the Ontario film review board that does lists the move as HARRY POTTER & THE PHILOSOPHER STONE and does not use the other title. [[4]] --67.68.153.32 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Errrrm... It doesn't list it at all. It doesn't search. Reginmund 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... [5] Gran² 06:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not listed there. Reginmund 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then search for it... Type in Harry Potter and then click submit. Its the fourth item listed. Gran² 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried searching and it doesn't work. That's beside the point though, we are determining what country that this film was made. Reginmund 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also Amazon.ca's DVD listing - the film was never released in Canada as "Sorcerer's". --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Errrrrrm... Looks like it had two releases then: [6] Reginmund 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of four production companies that endorsed the film, two (including WB and Heyday) were American and two were British[7]. Of the four, WB had the honour to distribute it. The other studios assisted in the local production (since it was set in the U.K.). Reginmund 04:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, this shouldn't even be a debate; it is a FACT that this is an AMERICAN MOVIE called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in AMERICA that is based on a BRITISH BOOK called HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. Period; therefore, the movie article should carry THE SORCERER'S STONE title and the book article should carry THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE title. It's so simple... 71.145.148.97 07:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

That's telling it... Reginmund 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what makes it American? By who produced it? Well, we know the UK helped produce it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was filmed in the U.K. but produced in the U.S.[8]. Reginmund 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked HeyDay wasn't located here. It was produced in both locations. But still, not seeing where that makes it American. I'm curious as to where the guideline is that says this would be a US film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Onw comment that I want to make- Who's also to say what poster from the movie should we use on the page? Should we use the UK/England poster or the American one? Is there a policy that could help me?  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think having a clear understanding of which country we plan to claim as owner of a film is probably a good bet to determine which poster to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Check that Yahoo! link. It says clearly at the bottom that the film is a U.S. production. Reginmund 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm at work so I can't view it. Secondly, who told Yahoo who gets the head title? Did they make that assumption by themselves. Has anyone checked to see if HeyDay claims ownership of Harry? But again, not seeing any guideline that says ownership of films is based solely on who produces the film, since more than one company produced this film (and most films for that matter are generally produced by multiple sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're at work then why are you editing (it would actually take less time to check the link then to type). Yahoo! is a film source, just like any other. The main contributor to the production of the film was WB. It says there if you just look. Don't respond to this again unless you look because I know that it would take much less time than to respond. Reginmund 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Wikipedia had a rule against when you can edit. Interesting notion. Demanding things of me at that, how uncouthe. Again, you never answered my question. Where is the guideline that dictates who gets ownership of a film when multiple cultures produce it. Yahoo is about as usable as IMDb. The question that needs to be asked is, who owns the film rights. This is something not determined by who is producing the film, as those companies get shares and the company that actually owns the film rights might not necessarily be the one that forks over the majority of the money (like wise, they might not be getting the biggest share either). Does Warner Brothers own the sole film rights, or does Rowlings? Make no mistake, the James Bond films are British films. No matter if Sony or MGM puts in more money to produce them, the Broccoli's own the film rights to that franchise and help to produce it under EON pictures. The real question is, "who owns the film rights"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I didn't say that Wikipedia did. It seems daft that you are saying that it is too much of an inconvenience to read that link (which would take mcuh less time) since you are working than to write another filibuster. There is no guideline to decide the rule of what country should be considered the film's primary producer but resbonsibly, we would base it off of the main contributor and/or cite sources from other such as IMDb or Yahoo! The peron that sells the film rights is not responsible for making the film. Nobody gives credit to their bank for opening their business. Now since we know that Warner Bros. contributed more significantly to the production of Harry Potter and we already have a cited source that says that Harry Potter is an American film, now all you need to do is click that link. Are you ready to take that step? to read the bottom of the page for ten seconds? Or are you too busy working or writing another filibuster for ten minutes? As for Bond, I never said that it was an American production as its primary production company is EON. Reginmund 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was saying that I cannot view the link at work, not that I wouldn't not view the link at work (i.e. I cannot view it because I have filters on my work computer). But I love the snive attitude you have developed. I viewed the link when I was home for lunch. It says Produced in USA, like you said, but what does that mean? Where did they get their information. Are they just assuming it's WB's film because they show up more times in the producing and distributing? Who owns the film rights has nothing to do with how contributes more. If a Japanese production company owns the rights to a film, but they cannot afford to make it a big budget movie and they contact 20th Century Fox to help back them, that does not make it 20th Century Fox's movie. They would probably get a larger portion of the profits for supplying a larger portion of the budget, but the film still belongs to the Japanese company. Show a citation that says Warner Brothers owns the film rights. We don't know how much WB contributed. Do you have a budget sheet in front of you, or are you just going by Yahoo Movies again? I'm sorry, but I have no idea where Yahoo got their information. Did they talk to WB? Do we know HeyDay doesn't have the film rights? As of right now, you have not convinced me of anything, and according to the survey (which I haven't even taken part of yet, hence why we are having this conversation) you haven't been able to convince the vast majority of editors. You need to show who actually owns the film rights to these books. You show me that and I'll vote whichever way it falls. It's as simple as that. Yahoo Movies saying "produced in USA" does not say to me that WB controls the film rights. It says to me that Warner Brothers is putting more money in, but again that has nothing to do with who controls the film in the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If I give you a source, don't respond as if you haven't seen it and use the excuse that you're at work. What's to respond to then? It doesn't mean that WB has the rights but they produced the film. Therefore it is American. J. K. Rowling didn't make the film just because she owns the film rights. I never said that WB owns the films rights. I never even said that the film should be determined by who owns the rights.

Most other film sites only credit WB as the studio. This shows that the other studios had minor contribution to the film[9]. (Don't bother responding if you're still at work) I don't see why you would question the facts provided by Yahoo!. It is as much a source as any other. Just because you don't know where they received their information, doesn't mean that it isn't verifiable. Do you question the BBC? And just because I haven't convinced the vast amjority of editors, doesn't mean I'm going to quit what I am trying to say. some are saying things that I have already gone over. they're probably not even reading the comments. Whether or not I convince you seems to be due to your defiance to accept a reliable source. Yahoo! won't post some irrelevant "factoid" for no particular reason. Save your suspicions for when someone gives you a link to a message board.

Reginmund 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First, enhance your calm. Your attitude is really starting to annoy me. Don't being to presume anything about me, or how I will respond. I clarified what I meant when I said I couldn't view it at work. Pardon me for having a job (though not a busy job, it's still a job). I don't particularly care for your attitude, as it is seriously bordering on incivility. Now, to the point. All you have shown me is that Warner Brothers is the biggest studio backing the film. I get that. I got that from Yahoo. I got that from IMDb, and I get that from BOM.com. Show me where it says that we determine who owns a film by who puts more money into it, and not by who owns the film rights. It's very simple. If WB owns the films rights, great, I'll be happy to support a name change. If some small British company owns the film rights, and Warner Brothers just promised to financially back the film in exchange for a large portion of the profits, then I won't. Simple as that. P.S., if you continue to be incivil toward me for no reason, I will report it. I have done nothing to provoke this attitude, as you jumped on me from the moment I made a silly joke about Spider-Man being a Japanese film. It's called facetious, I wasn't being serious when I suggested it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Attitude? Somehow, I don't think that it is civil to disregard the opinions of another because you have the ambition to reinforce another fillibuster and you cannot regard the opinions since your office has filtered the website. Then it seems more appropriate to have patience until you can access an unfiltered connection instead of ignoring significant evidence of a point that I have given you and move the debate off the beaten path. Now to what we're supposed to be discussing... I'm hearing from you that the owner of the film's rights is supposed to be the factor in determining the film's nationality. This supposedly proves something that you were joking about. In this case, since Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man[10], the film would be considered Japanese. However, if you consider the nationality of the film to be within the studio that produced it (Columbia), Spider-Man's nationality is American. Of course, we all know that Spider-Man is American. Disagree with me if you wish. Now, if you were to say that Harry Potter is a British film because the owner of the film rights are British, then you would have to consider Spider-Man a Japanese film. However, Harry Potter was produced by Warner Bros., this makes it American. If you still say that a film's nationality is determined by the nationality of the rights holer and not the studio of production, then Spider-Man is Japanese and maybe you should propose that the infobox's facts be changed. It's your finest hour... choose a determining factor... Is Spider-Man American or Japanese? (Jeapordy! music plays)... by the way, your incivility complaint seems to have been fueled by your insufficient inability to come up with a better answer to everything I have said so far. Ridiculing me about my point gives me a reason to do the same for you. Otherwise, I don't see the reason for these excuses to veer away from the argument. Reginmund 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't incivil to you, but I can cite plenty of times you were to me to an Admin if you like. Regardless, I know when I joke, and I wasn't being serious when I said Spider-Man was Japanese. What I said was that I considered it, I in no way implied that Wikipedia considered anything of the sort. You provide Yahoo Movies that said that Warner Produced the film, I get that. You provided no information that says who owns the film rights, or what guideline stipulates the title of the film. On the other hand, Girolamo did provide you with a guideline, just no link to one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) mentions how to determine the title of a film if it is different for other countries. That is to determine the name most used in primarily english speaking countries. I think I actually asked that question first when I came to this discussion, though I didn't think about the naming convention guidelines when I did it. SO it seems to me that the only way you'll get this page renamed is if you can prove that "Sorceror's Stone" is the version used the most in primarily english speaking countries. Beyond that, it seems to me like this page isn't changing names (at least not according to the survey, so you can get an attitude with me all you like, claim I'm not answering your questions, or that I'm comig up with excuses, but it won't make a difference). I'm going to bed now, as it's 1am and I have work at 8am. Just so you cannot infere something completely different, that means I will be asleep and anything you say I won't read till tomorrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Throwing this in [11], a previous discussion about UK vs USA for the films, may be of some use for this. Gran² 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Touché, I can do the same for you & cite myself. I had already spent half of my fillibuster explaining to you why the film should not be based on the rights holder and instead the studio that produced it. Well I guess I will have to repeat myself again. I'm hearing from you that the owner of the film's rights is supposed to be the factor in determining the film's nationality. In this case, since Sony owns the rights to Spider-Man[12], the film would be considered Japanese. However, if you consider the nationality of the film to be within the studio that produced it (Columbia), Spider-Man's nationality is American. Of course, we all know that Spider-Man is American. Now, if you were to say that Harry Potter is a British film because the owner of the film rights are British, then you would have to consider Spider-Man a Japanese film. However, Harry Potter was produced by Warner Bros., this makes it American, therefore, Spider-Man would be considered American (which it is). If you still say that a film's nationality is determined by the nationality of the rights holder and not the studio of production, then Spider-Man is Japanese and maybe you should propose that the infobox's facts be changed. Now, you say that the naming conventions should be based on the most known title to English speakers, but what you didn't mention is that this is the secondary tool in deciding the title. However, it seems that WB does actually own the film rights as it says at the top of the page... funny that we didn't notice that before. The primary tool is considering the title of the film's release as described here:

Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the native title instead, and give the English title(s) afterward. (Taken from the guideline of film titles)

Now I think it is unorthodox to honour the primary usage over the production company's country's usage, but if you insist... I have calculated the amount of American English speakers as opposed to the other countries in the Anglosphere (exluding those, of course that do not use English as the primary language as instructed by the naming conventions page). The total amount of people living in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada,, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, Guyana, and Belize is 260,698,468. The total amount of Americans is 302,128,000. That's approximately 40 million more Americans that know this film as "Sorcerer's Stone". Before mulling, this over, try contemplating to stop complaining about my "attitude" because now it just seems that you're trying to get off of the subject.Reginmund 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First, let me reiterate what I already told you. To me, that would be what would determine a film's proper name. Again, I never once claimed that Wikipedia uses that system of logic. Harry Potter was produced by more than just Warner Brothers. First, when it says more commonly known, it isn't "how many people reside in given country", as not even the US census is that accurate. It's an estimation. What is being counted is how many countries themselves call it "Sorceror's Stone". Regardless, discussing this is irrelevant. I don't even need to cast an opinion, and frankly, Ckatz won my opinion because they did something you never once did, and that was provided a guideline for how to name the article. So, I'll bid you adou. The name change is clearly not going to happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Estimation? So they counted forty million people accidently? No... they didn't. That is the worst excuse you have given me so far. It is the quantity of the amount of people that know it as "Sorcerer's Stone" and not the amount of countries. That doesn't make it better known. You said that it is better known as "Philosopher's Stone" (which I think is irrelevant). 40 million more people know it as "Sorcerer's Stone". You said that the ststus is determined by who owns the rights (which I also disagree to). It turns out that our article said at the top that WB owned the rights all along. However, I said that the film should be determined by the primary studio of production (which I have proven to you on several occasions is WB). As you have so blatantly lied about me not providing a guideline which I did since I copied this one from my previous fillibuster... Now for the grand finale:

Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the native title instead, and give the English title(s) afterward. Taken from the guidelines (again)

You support Ckatz in giving me the guidelines, eh? Well this proves to show two things that I have been trying to say here. As I have had to repeat for the third time, forty million people more know this film as Sorcerer's Stone and that's not even the primary obstacle. It says that the primary obstacle is to use the native title instead (i.e. the country of production... i.e. U.S. (WB)). it seems that every rebuttal you have, has been shambled and now the final question is... Does consensus rule over guidelines? Reginmund 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick clarification, US census is an estimation. There are not exactly 302,128,000 people in the US. It's estimated based on the figures they receive when they run a census. That is irrelevant as you asked a question: "Does consensus rule over guidelines?". The answer is yes. Why? Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy. Auf Wiedersehen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that 302,128,000 is a legitimate number. Don't say that I did because I didn't. The Census Bureau estimated that there are 302,128,000. That means that there is an estimate of 40 million more people that know this film as "Sorcerer's Stone". Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't say anything about how official policy is superior to consensus but it doesn't say that it isn't. In that case, I will discuss this with some admins as to whether or not it is. Since keeping this page violates at least three different policies which I have already proven to you, it may be moved for obvious reasons, but if consensus rules over policy (which I highly doubt), then so be it, the page would stay. So my "irrelevant" question has some merit here. It seems to me like you didn't even read the page that you gave me. Reginmund 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, anyone who ACTUALLY thinks that this movie isn't an American movie and SHOULDN'T be called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is just ignorant. Period. There are PLENTY of AMERICAN movies that have been made (i.e. shot and edited) OUTSIDE of America that feature a prominently British cast, but they are STILL CONSIDERED TO BE AMERICAN MOVIES SINCE THE COMPANY THAT PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED THEM IS AMERICAN! And there's a difference between the PRODUCTION of a movie and the DISTRIBUTION of it!

I mean, I cannot believe that this is even a debate. Again, it's a FACT that this is an AMERICAN MOVIE called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in AMERICA that is based on a BRITISH BOOK called HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE; therefore, the movie article should carry THE SORCERER'S STONE title and the book article should carry THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE title! IT’S THIS SIMPLE, PEOPLE! YOU NEED TO GET OVER YOUR OBNOXIOUS ANTI-AMERICA ATTITUDE!

Using everyone's (except Reginmund's) inane logic, had the British book, HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE been called HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE in EVERY OTHER country, you'd want the book article to use THE SORCERER'S STONE title JUST BECAUSE that's what the majority of English-speaking countries use? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! The title of an article should be the same as the title of the movie/book in the movie/book's ORIGINATING COUNTRY, NOT what the majority of OTHER countries call the movie/book; and in these cases, these are THE PHILOSOSPHER’S STONE for the book (Britain) and THE SORCERER’S STONE for the movie (America). Again, this is so simple! 71.145.148.97 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

Please do not call other editors "ignorant" because they disagree with your assertions. If, for whatever reason, you cannot remain civil, please do not contribute to this argument. Daggoth | Talk 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bignole thinks that the film is better known as "Philosopher's Stone" because it is known there in five countries despite the fact that it is actually known by 40 million more people as "Sorcerer's Stone". He/she hasn't even provided a guideline on determining that you count by the countries and not the people (which is quite daft). Reginmund 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Also, Reginmund, this movie was released in the U.S. on November 16, 2001 according to the IMDB, Yahoo!, and many other resourceful movie websites. I also know this is true because I live in the U.S. and saw it in November! Whoever put in the article that it was released here on December 5, 2001 was either extremely misinformed or did it on purpose. Regardless, this is pretty discreditable for Wikipedia and I'm quite surprised that no one has even brought this up yet. Could you change it please? 71.145.148.97 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)(the same person who replied to Reginmund's comment above starting with "Amen, Reginmund.").

Comment: Move to close the discussion. Consensus is obvious - currently 15-3 in favour of retaining the current title. As well, the debate is degenerating rapidly as evidenced by the most recent comments from Reginmund and 71.145.148.97. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Regardless of whether or not this debate is valid, it's clear that the people above will not be moved no matter what the outcome is. Daggoth | Talk 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's actually 15-3. I have already made several pooints to Bignole as to why this film should have its name changed and its really coming down to whether or not consensus is superior to policy. That's what I'm finding out now. Give it more time. Reginmund 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with giving it more time. While it is true that sentiment seems to be largely against the move, this issue is hotly debated and I think it would be unfair to close it early. ●DanMS • Talk 01:20, 26 July 2007 (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.