|
This is the talk page for discussing the page, Movie. | |
|---|---|
|
Please try to
|
Release dates and details[]
This is a disambiguation page. i.e. a page users are taken to when a term with multiple interpretations is searched for or linked to. In that case, all the page should do is list the possible articles "movie" could refer to, including just enough details to tell them apart. I don't think it's necessary to include the release dates to tell which movie you're looking for.
However if people think this is better suited as an article on movies than a disambiguation page, then I think it's okay to include details such as release dates, but the {{disambiguation}} template should be removed from the page.
-- Deltaneos (talk) 20:03, July 12, 2016 (UTC)
- I am in favor of removing the release dates. My idea of dab pages here is to keep them as simple as possible. However, some of wikipedia's dab pages do have release dates (for movies, music albums, etc.) and since I didn't want to engage on an argument with anyone, I asked for help to an admin whose opinion was that the release dates could stay.
- Making an article out of this is something I don't feel it's necessary (I never got into this page, actually), especially if it's an article just to provide info about the release dates (and maybe a synopsis of each movie). Though it could work. Becasita Pendulum (talk • contribs) 20:17, July 12, 2016 (UTC)
- I would imagine the point to including dates on some dabpages on Wikipedia is to be able to distinguish between works with identical names (and to that end, all the dates I remember seeing on their dabpages are limited to the year, rather than a specific date or even a month). We don't have to worry about that here (yet), so the dates shouldn't be needed. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:13, July 13, 2016 (UTC)
"Movie" or "Film"[]
(I've split this into a separate section from #Release dates and details since it's a new topic.) -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:55, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
- On another note, I'd kinda like to have this renamed to "Film" (with a redirect left in place from here, of course), to reflect our general prefernce for using "film" instead of "movie" when the choice is left to us. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:13, July 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the rename suggestion: According to the Manual of style "American English spellings are used." and the dates are formatted that way too; so I guess it makes sense (to my knowledge, "film" is preferred over "movie" in American English, right?). Becasita Pendulum (talk • contribs) 21:01, July 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Both words are used in American English. "Movie" is the more common word in North America, while "film" is more common in Europe. Personally I find the word "film" to be more formal and "movie" to be more lighthearted, which is why I, at least, have been using "film" when writing articles. Even so, "film" just doesn't feel right to me as the title for this page. Maybe because "Movie" is the word more likely to be used in their names, which it has for at least one.
- If we need to disambiguate an article for a film, which I think we should for the Toei film, currently at Yu-Gi-Oh! (1999 flim), should it be "Yu-Gi-Oh! (film)" or "Yu-Gi-Oh! (movie)"? -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:55, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, it seems I completely had the wrong idea.
- I guess "movie" works better as a solo word; for a title, for instance; while "film" seems to fit better in phrases/strings. At least that's how they look to me. "Movie" is more of a big thing and "film" is more to indicate or to go along with something. Between both, personal preference goes for "movie".
- But my opinion aside, Wikipedia uses Film; while Movie redirects to it. Wikipedia also uses "(film)" when differentiating articles with the same name but for different media (example (film)). So if we want to go by that concept, "Yu-Gi-Oh! (film)" would be the best way. What do you think? Becasita Pendulum (talk • contribs) 23:20, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
- I've heard the argument "Wikipedia does it this way." and the counterargument "This isn't Wikipedia, therefore Wikipedia is irrelevant." for numerous discussions in the past. I'm not fond of either. What people should focus on is why Wikipedia does it a certain way, and then we can determine if that logic is also applicable here.
- Looking at wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive 1, it's been brought up a few times. The main arguments seem to be that "film" is more formal-sounding and globally-used. In relation to the latter point, Wikipedia covers films from all over the world, including places where the film is unlikely to be called a "movie". We only cover Yu-Gi-Oh! films, where the word "movie" is often used in their marketing. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:53, July 15, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, my idea was kind of "if Wikipedia does it, they probably had thought about it" and, by default, I tend to go with Wikipedia. I'm now seeing it's a wrong reasoning on my part, sorry. Sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.
- Yeah, they seem to prefer "film". But you're right and this isn't Wikipedia; focusing on Yu-Gi-Oh! and looking at PyramidofLightPoster.jpg and YuGiOhTheDarksideofDimensionsPoster.png, you can see "THE MOVIE" on the former and "Yu-Gi-Oh! Movie Production Committee" on the latter. That's how they use it officially. I guess we should have our answer there (in their marketing, yeah), since we stick to official terminology. Becasita Pendulum (talk • contribs) 10:03, July 15, 2016 (UTC) —Last edited at 10:25, July 15, 2016 (UTC). Reason: Rewording.
