Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Franchise and Film series: Changing the DAB

Latest comment: 6 years ago105 comments8 people in discussion

I have a bone to pick with "franchise" vs. "film series". A "franchise" doesn't just mean multi-media. "Franchise" also refers to film series that have reboots, spin-offs, ETC. Usually, a "film series" refers to a film and its sequels/prequels. For example, Friday the 13th (1980) and Friday the 13th (2009) are certainly part of the same franchise, but they are not the same series. In terms of spin-offs, Annabelle and The Conjuring are part of the same franchise, but Annabelle is an installment in a seperate spin-off series and is not Conjuring 2 or even Conjuring 1.5. The naming conventions should be updated to make this distinction. Dark Knight 2149 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think spin-offs probably qualify as being part of the same series i.e. they often share characters, a continuity etc, basically they represent a fork in the series, rather than a completely new series. It is difficult to comprehensively cover a spin-off without covering what it is spun from. As for reboots, it is more complicated. In the case of the Nolan Batman films or the new Planet of the Apes films for instance, yes I think they count as separate series, but what about the Daniel Craig Casino Royale? It is technically a reboot but still part of the Eon production line, and in pretty much every way is just the next James Bond film. I think for something to be regarded as a completely separate series there needs to be a clear break in both continuity and the production line, otherwise it is just a continuation of some kind. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Betty Logan: I see what you are saying but, if it is a brand new continuity (such as the case with James Bond), I would argue that it as a separate series, even if it is another routine film (though, it is still very much part of the James Bond film franchise). It is my understanding that a series refers to a serialised continuity of something (such as a film and its sequels/prequels, or an anthology series), so to completely reboot a continuity would be to start a different one. As for spin-offs, I agree with you in some instances (for example, I would say that Army of Darkness is very much in the same series as The Evil Dead). However, in many other instances, spin-offs will branch off into their own thing. Case of point, I would say that the The Scorpion King sequels are not in the main Mummy series, though they are the same franchise. Same goes the Annabelle series and The Conjuring. And, as a final example, Rogue One is meant to be the start of a new anthology Star Wars series, that is separate from the main Star Wars series. A "fork" or to "spin-off" in the series would usually be to start a new series that is still connected to be the main one, or just a single standalone film. To reboot would be to start a new series in the same franchise that isn't connected to what came before. Dark Knight 2149 01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: while I appreciate your boldness, I don't think you get to just come in and redefine the existing naming convention (and move The Conjuring (film series)) solely on your say-so. There's a pre-existing consensus on how film properties are named. You might disagree, and maybe you can generate a new consensus, but your move here without any attempt to discuss it and reach a consensus first (especially since, as you note somewhere, that that page in particular has been bounced around quite a bit) just flat-out ignores the existing convention and (given that page's recent move history i.e. it's already been thoroughly boldly moved at this point), also ignores WP:BRD. And in fact, there's already been recent discussion on the appropriate name for that article and the consensus was "(film series)" —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Joeyconnick: Thank you very much for your constructive criticism (No sarcasm intended, BTW). Allow me to do some elaborating - If you take a second look at the diff you speak of, you'll notice that I didn't realise it had bounced back and forth until after the move. Before then, I was only aware that a few users had attempted to move the page to the unacceptable The Conjuring Universe a few times. And I'm simply laying out why I believe the existing naming conventions are incomplete. As you say, a consensus has to start somewhere (I.E. here) and this isn't meant to be a hostile takeover. Holding an entire discussion by Wiki-gunpoint would be quite disruptive. Dark Knight 2149 01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't realize your realization came after the move. I've had similar concerns myself regarding restricting "franchise" to properties in multiple media given that in The Conjuring pages, people are referring to "The Conjuring series" and "the Annabelle series" and I thought about bringing it up, but then I realized you could just refer to those subcollections as "The Conjuring films" and "the Annabelle films". I guess ultimately, I figured there was a reason the naming convention made a distinction, even if it wasn't super-apparent to me, and I didn't feel strongly enough to bring it up. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reversed the move. Considering there was a consensus for the move to The Conjuring (film series) at Talk:The_Conjuring_(film_series)#Requested_move_25_April_2017 it should not be moved back without a fresh discussion. We don't disregard the formal move process just because we disagree with the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the issue of the move and all, is there a clear definition of what series is vs. what franchise is? Does the film industry use these terms in a certain clear and consistent way? I wouldn't like to think that we here in Wikipedia are going to decide (say by consensus) which term applies to which group of films. Consensus or no, it would be something that we decide (OR-wise) versus citing sources that do this classification. IMO, this issue should be made clear first, before getting to the naming conventions. Hoverfish Talk 02:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is an exact definition of what a "series" is in this context. As Daß Wölf states below, it is basically a sequence of films that is connected in some way. A "franchise" is fairly specific and is dependent on the licensing of intellectual property or copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that many films and film series spawn media franchises, selling toy lines, novelisations, comic book limited series, amusement park rides (even soundtracks and posters could count), but in many cases the franchise aspect is routine and non-notable. Daß Wölf 03:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO, a "film series" is a series of films. I don't see this term implying any continuity or necessary likeness -- they have merely been associated with one another due to shared characters, themes, plots, cast & crew members, etc. Continuity is very much relative anyway. Daß Wölf 02:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's where we disagree. I see a series of films as being a film and its follow-ups (sequels, prequels, and occasionally spin-offs, ETC). When a spin-off becomes it's own independent thing with sequels and the like, it has branched off into its own series that is still part of the same franchise. I also see a reboot as being the start of a different series, even if it is in the same franchise. For example, I don't consider A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) to be in the same series as the original, though there is absolutely no dispute that they are indeed the same franchise. Dark Knight 2149 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To me, a series is a subset of a franchise even if it’s not a proper subset. That is, it wouldn’t be incorrect to call it a franchise even if it didn’t extend beyond the films. The OED backs this up: A general title or concept used for creating or marketing a series of products, typically films or television shows. A series of films. We seem to have redefined the word for our own purposes. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the naming convention as is, because the RS's use the term differently and the current definition is the most useful for the construction of articles. When fiction does go cross-media (Star Wars, Marvel, DC, PotA etc) and there's relevant content to be added, having the franchise namespace reserved for it is helpful. Although it can be frustrating to then differentiate between different subsets in a film series (the recent discussion re the Batman films comes to mind), even adapting the meaning of franchise will only help to a limited extent and we would then lose our capability to easily present the wider cultural impact of certain fictions (including toys, video games, novels) in manner in which the reader would expect to find it. Scribolt (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I’m not saying we shouldn’t use “franchise” for cross-media franchises. But why not also use the word for franchises (film series) that aren’t cross-media? Why should we default to “film series”? Make it precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. “Film series” is more precise than “franchise” in cases where they’re equally unambiguous. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If the article only covers films then "film series" does a better job than "franchise" of defining the scope. It is also possible that the disambiguators could be used in conjunction with each other i.e. if you have a large article summarising the franchise and a secondary article summarising the films in more depth. For instance Harry Potter is really the franchise article while Harry Potter (film series) is about the films; using "franchise" as a disambiguator for the film series article really wouldn't work in this case. It is helpful to maintain that hierarchical distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at Betty Logan. It's more useful to be able to consistently identify what we currently call the franchise i.e. it's better to have one franchise with multiple film series within it, than a franchise with another franchise within that. Scribolt (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with 67.14.236.50 that a series is a subset of a franchise. And WP:PRECISION does come into play here, which is why that if there is ever a Harry Potter film reboot, the article would have to be changed from (film series) to (film franchise), because it wouldn't be in the same series as the other films. Dark Knight 2149 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In terms of scope, I think the same arguments could be made for using (franchise) for cross-media articles. Wouldn't it be (media franchise) for cross-media, if we're going to say that about (series), and (franchise) not narrowing it down enough for film-only franchise articles? Dark Knight 2149 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, the way we seem to be using the term as DAB, it does seem to exclusively apply to cross-media franchises (as opposed to film-only franchises); on the other hand, it’s unnecessarily more precise than just “franchise,” even though we apply the label as if it were more precise than it is. But consistency one way or the other would be nice, if we either used “franchise” for every franchise or used “media franchise” for cross-media franchises. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What I said was, “Film series” is more precise than “franchise” in cases where they’re equally unambiguous (emphasis added). Harry Potter is not such a case—the article at Harry Potter (film series) does not cover all aspects of the franchise. I’m talking about franchises that do not have separate “franchise” and “film series” pages, such as The Conjuring (film series/franchise). In such cases, “franchise” is precise enough to identify the subject of the article, and “film series” is more precise than that, which runs contrary to WP:PRECISION. In cases where there’s no need for a hierarchical distinction, why skip over levels of the hierarchy? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A rough proposal: merge § Film series and § Film franchise to something like

Film franchise
When the content originating in a film is presented in subsequent films or in other media, then an associated overview page (an article describing and summarising the items of the franchise) may be disambiguated (if necessary) as Series name (franchise). An article discussing the films separately from other items of a franchise should be titled Series name (film series). If no official name etc. [use the rest of § Film series unchanged]

Under this proposal, the franchise overview page for Harry Potter would remain at Harry Potter (no DAB needed), and the overview article dedicated to the HP films would remain at Harry Potter (film series). The article discussing the Conjuring franchise (which consists entirely of films) would be at The Conjuring (franchise); if the franchise ever significantly expanded beyond films, then a “film series” article could easily be forked from the expanding main article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC) edited 00:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd stick with "film series", "book series", etc. "Franchise" is unnecessarily ambiguous here, and it does imply some sort of concerted marketing effort, which cannot be ascribed to all film series. For instance, Mind's Eye (film series) is undoubtedly a film series, but is it a franchise? Daß Wölf 00:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is; why else continue to use “Mind’s Eye” in the titles? I have no idea what kind of marketing the series may or may not have had (never heard of it myself), but that’s branding, which is certainly a form of marketing.

If “franchise” is ambiguous, then I agree with Darkknight2149 above that we should start using “media franchise” instead, as distinct from film-only franchises like that one. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that my main concern (and the reason this discussion was started) was due to people erroneously using (film series) to describe film franchises that aren't just a single series. For franchises that have reboots, spin-off series, ETC, a disambiguation like (film franchise) or simply (franchise) is more accurate than (film series). People are arguing that (franchise) is too ambiguous to list for film franchises, but it is just as ambiguous when you use (franchise) to describe media franchises as well. That's why I suggested possibly introducing the (media franchise) DAB. Dark Knight 2149 00:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As a parallel example to support that original point, the episodes of Joanie Loves Chachi are not part of Happy Days (TV series). A spinoff series is not part of the original series. But they are part of the same franchise. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Dark Knight 2149 01:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

KISS: (franchise), (media franchise) or (film franchise) aren't useful as one-size-fits-all substitutions for (film series). #1 creates unnecessary ambiguity in the title and confusion with multimedia franchises, while #2 and #3 will be completely extraneous until someone opens a Harry Potter chain store or a line of Alien restaurants or some such thing. More to the point, calling every and any collection of artistic works in succession a "franchise" is a recent marketing fad and adopting such fads doesn't bode well for an encyclopedia. Daß Wölf 01:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's just it - one size doesn't fit all in this situation. This is not a matter of following a "fad". It's a matter of accuracy. A series and a franchise are not the same thing. We aren't arguing that (film series) should be done away with completely; only that (film series) shouldn't used in articles that aren't about a single film series and are actually about an entire film franchise. As for the ambiguity, that is easily solved by creating either a DAB for (film franchise) or a DAB for (media franchise). Ambiguity solved. It's not any different from creating the (film series) DAB, since (series) can mean any number of things. Dark Knight 2149 01:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the proposal rather says that any film series should by default be disambiguated as (franchise), unless it is part of a multimedia franchise which has its own (franchise) page. Daß Wölf 02:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the proposal was to use (franchise) (or alternatively (film franchise)) in situations where a (film series) expands from being a single film series to a larger franchise with separate spin-off series (examples: The Annabelle series for The Conjuring, or The Scorpion King series for The Mummy), reboots (example: Friday the 13th (2009) to the 1980-2003 Friday the 13th film series), ETC. (film series) can be used for when the said reboot/spin-off/multimedia expansion/ETC hasn't occurred. Dark Knight 2149 03:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The proposal says "When the content originating in a film is presented in subsequent films or in other media..." (as oposed to the original #Film franchise text: "When the content originating in a film is presented in other media"). Perhaps you see this as giving editors leeway on determining what is a film series and what is a film franchise, but I see this as a catch-all. Besides, reboots and spin-offs are vague and overlapping ideas. With different titles and different marketing, many "sequels" of yesteryear (The Howling III, Dracula II: Ascension, Bloodsport II: The Next Kumite, Vampires: Los Muertos, No Retreat, No Surrender 2 etc.) could've well been branded reboots or spinoffs today with nary a frame on the cutting room floor. Daß Wölf 03:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was proposing to replace “film series” with “franchise,” in the broadest possible sense of the word. I concede that it wasn’t as great an idea as I first hoped, so I’ll strike it now.

And I support replacing “franchise” with “media franchise” (to distinguish it from e.g. a film franchise, or series) independently of that. I also agree that “film series” does not sufficiently include tangentially related material, such as reboots or spinoffs. For instance, I would say the Matrix film series is the trilogy; the Matrix film franchise includes that and The Animatrix, the upcoming reboot movie, and possibly making-of features; the media franchise also includes video games, books, et al. But the Matrix franchise is ambiguous, because the word has variable scope. It could refer to the entirety of related media, or it could refer only to the filmed content. The word needs a qualifier.

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Daß Wölf "Reboots and spin-offs are vague and overlapping ideas" - I disagree. There is a very fine line between sequels, spin-offs, and reboots, and each has a very specific meaning. Even if films like Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Jurassic World are erroneously referred to as "reboots" by certain websites (often for click bait), they follow the same continuity as their predecessors and are very much sequels. All of the sequels you just named are just that - sequels, except for Vampires: Los Muertos (which is a spin-off) and No Retreat, No Surrender 2 (which is a sequel in-name-only). They do not establish a new series of their own, nor do they standalone in any way from their originals. I will also have to disagree with you that "reboot" is a marketing term. The only difference between a remake and a reboot is that a reboot has a different story, while a remake just re-makes the story of the original film (hence the name). In short, a reboot is always a reboot and a sequel is a sequel, regardless of how much time is in between them. All of the films you just named would have to be tweaked to be considered a reboot or spin-off. I think the origin of confusion here is that the terms are sometimes misused by certain websites. Dark Knight 2149 01:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As you pointed out, V:LM and NRNS2 are both not "sequels" in the straightforward plot-dependent sense of the word, yet they're labelled as such in our articles, because they've been marketed as such, and technically speaking, they are sequels in the sense that they are films following an earlier film in a definite series. The reason I've picked all of these films is because they're called sequels, yet they exhibit many common features of films labelled reboots & spinoffs: a few returning support cast members, a similar theme but not much causal connection to the first film, and liberal retconning.

The problem with terms like reboot, spinoff, remake, etc. is that between any of those terms there is no clear division, but a continuous range of films, some of which people clearly agree are reboots or remakes, some of which are far more one than the other, and definitely some that cannot be put neatly anywhere. E.g. we have Star Trek (2009), Star Wars: TFA, Ghostbusters (2016), Peter Jackson's King Kong and Gus Van Sant's Psycho. You draw the line in one place and I'll argue to draw it in another and we'll both be right, because the definition of both terms is, when it comes down to it, not exact enough. (And consider that Star Trek (2009) et al would have been called just plain sequels 20 years ago.) However, when we come to the question of whether some films are in a sequence, the answer is not so complicated. Almost all the time (all the time when one of the films belongs to a "film franchise"), two films are either connected to each other or not, there's no middle way. And if they are, then we can say they're part of a "film series". Daß Wölf 01:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: I mentioned this a bit ago, but Happy Days and Joanie Loves Chachi are clearly connected, but no one would consider any episodes from each to be part of the same series. They are two distinct, but related, series. What makes a film series so conceptually different from a TV series? Is it the timing? If the spinoff show began airing after the original ended, would you argue the two were the same series? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think your point might highlight a problem we're having in this debate: people are using differing definitions of the term "series". In your example above, a "TV series" (in US English) generally means 1 show with generally 1 name with 1 set of episodes in a particular sequence. So Happy Days and Joanie Loves Chachi are clearly two separate TV series. When "film series" is being used to disambiguate in the guideline, it seems to me a more general definition of "series" is being used: a set of elements that are related to one another, occurring in some order (a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; from here). So while, say, The Conjuring, The Conjuring 2, and Annabelle do not work like a TV series in that, narratively, The Conjuring comes first, followed by Annabelle, followed by The Conjuring 2, all three films are related, and the name given to that relation/set (so far) is based on the original member of the set (The Conjuring) and then "(film series)". So when something is being called "Nnn (film series)" vis-a-vis the current naming convention, no one is claiming that, narratively, all the films in that group are directly linked from A to B to C etc. This gives some useful flexibility in that you can refer to all the films related to/spawned from a particular creative property without having to discuss non-film forms of said property. But in the case of the properties currently disambiguated as "(film series)", there are no non-film forms of said properties, so rather than calling them "Nnn (franchise)", they're simply called "Nnn (film series)"... until the property spans more than simply films. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: I, again, have to say that there is a clear division. Although the line can be somewhat blurred by simple marketing, the terms are still well defined and the vast majority of sequels and reboots are clear-cut sequels or reboots (regardless of how much time is between them). Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is unquestionably a sequel, Friday the 13th (2009) is unquestionably a reboot, ETC. The examples of clear-cut reboots, sequels, and the like, far outweighs the number of ambiguous cases. If we do enough digging into any topic, there are always ambiguities and exceptions. And what makes something a sequel or reboot in such ambiguous cases is almost besides the point. A sequel in-name-only (such as Troll 2) is still a sequel, even if only because it was marketed as such.
@Joeyconnick: But is there really that much of a difference between the "series" definitions? Just as episodes in a spin-off TV series are distinct from the episodes of the main series, films in a spin-off film series are distinct from that of the main film series (even if they are the same franchise). Annabelle might be in the same universe and franchise as The Conjuring, but it is not the sequel to The Conjuring. It is just a film in the same universe. The Conjuring 2 does not follow Annabelle, it is a direct sequel to The Conjuring (just as the new Annabelle film is a prequel to the first Annabelle film, and not The Conjuring or Conjuring 2). At this point, Annabelle is a separate series that exists in the same franchise. The same can be applied to reboots, as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not in the same series as Escape from the Planet of the Apes or Planet of the Apes (2001), though they are all part of the same franchise. By trying to apply (franchise) only to multi-media franchises, users are trying to make this more simplistic than it actually is. We need to be accurate above all else, even if it is easier to not think about it. Dark Knight 2149 00:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I also prefer "film series" if the topic under discussion is a series of films, with no other media involved. If there's a !vote on this, that is where my preference would go. bd2412 T 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: the point I'm trying to make (thank you Joeyconnick for brining me back on the track) is that Friday the 13th (2009) is called a reboot today, but a film with the same amount of retconning would be called a remake or a sequel a few decades ago. That, in addition to the vagueness in the definition of what a reboot is, points out that the definitions of reboot, sequel, etc. are changing over time and have done so recently enough that the dust hasn't settled. That means that dividing film "franchises" into subseries is essentially dependant on the series' time period and the era when the sources advocating this division were written. Meanwhile, we have a perfectly time-independant naming system already in place. Daß Wölf 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"Friday the 13th (2009) is called a reboot today, but a film with the same amount of retconning would be called a remake or a sequel a few decades ago." - And, what I have been getting at, is that simply isn't true. A sequel has always been a sequel and a reboot is always a reboot. The definitions haven't changed that much in the last few decades. Firstly, "reboot" is just a variation of "remake", which has been around for many, many decades. Remake and reboot mean the nearly exact same thing, except a remake just re-does the exact story of the original while a reboot creates a new story. And as for your argument, even if Friday the 13th (2009) was released in the mid-1980s, it would still be a remake/reboot, because it's not sequel. It doesn't "retcon" anything because the connections to the original aren't there to begin with. It could be released in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, or 2010s, and it would always be a remake/reboot. Contrary to what you are arguing, there has always been a clear distinction between a sequel and a remake/reboot. Even at the time, The Thing (1982) or The Fly (1986) were always considered remakes. Even if we go back earlier, Dracula's Daughter was always a sequel to Dracula (1931) and Dracula (1979) was always a remake. None of this is anything new (except for the term "reboot"). Are there examples of more ambiguous cases where the line is somewhat blurred (such as your examples)? Sure, but they are much fewer and far in-between. What's important is that the distinction is still there. A sequel in-name-only (a la Troll 2) is still a sequel. And if it came today as a "sequel" to the original Troll in-marketing-only, it would still be that. But examples of films like that are largely unusual to begin with. Dark Knight 2149 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment - After seeing this (If the decision is to ultimately to move everything to "franchise"...), I just want to clarify that my proposal in this discussion isn't about moving everything to (franchise). My proposal was to update the NCF to accomodate film franchises that aren't multi-media projects, yet aren't a single film series either. That's why disambiguations such as (media franchise) and (film franchise) were suggested, to supplement our usage of "franchise" to only describe multi-media projects. Dark Knight 2149 18:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Franchise and Film series (arbitrary break)

Some have said that terms like “reboot” and “remake” are too murky, too much gray area. They’re right. Or they’re not. Doesn’t matter, we don’t use the words in these titles anyway.

But the way we use “film series” is even hazier, except we insist on pretending there is no haze. Is it a series of direct sequels? Yes? Film series. Is it a series of direct sequels, and another largely unrelated series of direct sequels? Film series. Is it a set of films featuring different versions of the same characters in different unrelated stories? Film series. Is it an indiscriminate collectoin of movies featuring characters named Bob? Film series.

We ought to work out just what we all mean by the term, so that we can put that in the guideline, so that we can all know what we mean by the term. There would be exceptions of course—anything that RSes universally call a series should be called a series—but we need a working definition. Some have defined it in a way that seems fairly indiscriminate, in that any tangentially related film is part of the series. This seems too broad and imprecise, especially in cases where there’s a “main” series or multiple sub-series; instead, we can diversify into different terms, and call some of the less clear-cut cases a “movie franchise” or “shared universe” or something. Don’t sacrifice accuracy for fallacious consistency. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is simply a disambiguator that is applied to disambiguated titles to make the topic and scope of the article clear to readers. It is very unlikely that a reader would be confused by an article called Die Hard (film series) even if it did include a reboot or spin-off, so the disambiguator adequately serves its purpose. Again you are proposing a solution without providing any evidence that is actually a problem in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

All I’m proposing here is to add a clear definition to the guideline, addressing a problem evident throughout this discussion—that we collectively don’t know what “film series” means. If you can reconcile the ways that, say, DaßWölf and DarkKnight define the term, I’ll withdraw the request. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note: It’s “very unlikely” that Die Hard (film series) would confuse anyone. It’s also very (maybe more) unlikely that Die Hard (film franchise) would confuse anyone, in your hypothetical. Not sure what your point is on that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a naming convention for films so it's a good idea for "film" to actually appear in the disambiguator. If the article is just about films then "film series" describes the scope of the article better than "franchise". In some instances they may be interchangeable, but in others they can be used in conjunction if there is a hierarchical naming strategy available. This has all been explained above though so I'm not going through it all again. But once again, a disambiguator does not need to be defined: it just needs to differentiate the scope of the article sufficiently from other articles with a similar name and you have provided no evidence that the current convention is failing to do this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the readers finding it confusing. We could call the articles The Conjuring (A Bunch of Movies), and the readers wouldn't be confused. It's a matter of accuracy, and calling a film franchise "(film series)" when it isn't a singular film series is inaccurate. Introducing a DAB such as (film franchise) or (media franchise) would address the scope concerns. And (franchise) doesn't automatically imply "multi-media" or scope, so we have a bit of a double standard here. (franchise) really isn't less ambiguous than (series), but they aren't the exact same thing. Dark Knight 2149 01:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: The word “film” also appears in “film franchise.” Would you find this term acceptable, where applicable? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No I don't find it acceptable because as yet you have failed to convince me there is a problem wih the existing disambiguator. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy is a problem. I don’t understand how one can say it isn’t. Also, if something can be improved, why would we not? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We wouldn't if the new solution creates more inaccuracies than it eliminates. "Film series" is a term with a century of recognition. "Film franchise" is not, and creates ambiguity as it is generally not used in the sense you propose -- see e.g. [1], [2]. Daß Wölf 20:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: I’m not sure what those links are meant to illustrate, except that “film franchise” is considered a superset of “film series,” in the same way that all squares are rectangles. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The links above prove nothing, considering that The Godfather is just a singular film series. It's literally just the original and its two sequels. That's it. I should probably re-iterate (yet again) that the proposal isn't to replace (film series) with (film franchise) entirely; only for when a "film series" isn't a singular series. "Series" has a meaning that is distinct from "franchise". Even without other media, we can't disambiguate an article like Friday the 13th as "(film series)" when the article is about all of the films, which aren't all part of the same series. "Series" is often a subset of a larger franchise. Nothing in the proposal "creates inaccuracies", it merely corrects a major one. Dark Knight 2149 23:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You propose to use "film franchise" as meaning only "a film series that includes reboots/spinoffs". My point is that you seem to be quite alone in that sense, as demonstrated by any number of reliable sources. A reader is going to wonder why is one article called a "film series" and the other a "film franchise", and for no reason at all since status quo works just fine. Daß Wölf 01:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, your sources prove nothing. As previously mentioned, a film series is a subset of a film franchise. Any film series is technically part of a film franchise. However, the (film franchise) disambiguation only becomes necessary when the article is about a franchise with multiple film series (such as those with separate spin-off or reboot series). And if any readers need a clarification, they can be pointed to the updated NCF or we can simply tell them. Fixing this inaccuracy isn't going to cause a riot, and we shouldn't try to make matters less complicated than they actually are for the sake of simplicity. And I'm hardly "alone" on this. I'm not pulling this out of a magician's hat. Dark Knight 2149 02:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Any film series is technically part of a film franchise." - I think it's the other way around. A film series is any series of films connected meaningfully enough. Not all film series were produced each by the same company(ies) with the intent to capitalise on the fame of the previous installments, as opposed to just telling the story (although most are). For instance, if we had an article on Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy, and had to disambiguate it against something, the correct disambiguator would be "(film series)", but never "(film franchise)". Daß Wölf 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

But you are using "franchise" exclusively as as a business term, which is not the way it is used by the majority of reliable sources (film isn't just a business, it is an art medium). And your use of "film series" seems too loose for comfort, esp. given the links you just provided. And The Teenage Apocalypse is a single film trilogy, so of course the correct disambiguation for that is "film series". You'd be hard pressed to find someone who finds Batman Forever to be the same series as The Dark Knight, though they are the same film franchise. The same applies to most franchises. Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning isn't in the same series as Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (but they are both part of the Texas Chainsaw franchise), and The Scorpion King 3 isn't in the same series as The Mummy (but they are all part of the Mummy franchise), and the list goes on. Dark Knight 2149 03:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I would add that anyone who does consider such films to be part of the same “series” is conflating the terms series and franchise. Much like our titles have done. Which should be another reason to stop perpetuating that confusion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Just in case this needs clearing up: Daß Wölf said, You propose to use "film franchise" as meaning only […]. No. You have it backwards. This isn’t about only using “film franchise” for anything; it’s about not using “film series” for everything. The idea is to use “film franchise” when “film series” is inaccurately precise. You wouldn’t call the shape of your smartphone or television a square, even though a square is also a rectangle. You wouldn’t say “shoulder” to refer to a shirt sleeve, unless it was a T-shirt or tanktop. You wouldn’t call your entire leg your “thigh.” We shouldn’t call an entire franchise a “series,” unless a series is all there is to it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are arguing semantics. As my links point out, "film franchise" is usually not taken to mean what you say it means. To use your comparison, it would be like disambiguating all squares with "(rectangle)" and all other rectangles just as "(polygon)", because you've decided that only squares are rectangles. The terms in parentheses are correct, but that doesn't make it a good solution. (And I still maintain that there is no use for this because I haven't seen a situation where we would need a second disambiguator.) Daß Wölf 04:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: This is a discussion about semantics, but could you help me understand what you think your links are demonstrating, exactly? Because it seems to me they’re using one word for all rectangles, even for squares. (In this metaphor, rectangles are film franchises, and squares are film series, in case this was not clear.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As no answer seems forthcoming, I’ll make a formal proposal (one that I will not immediately strike). Let’s change § Film series to either present multiple disambiguators so the editor may select the most appropriate one, or describe our particular use of the umbrella disambiguator we have chosen. Something like one of the following:

For articles on a series of films, the title of the article should be Series name (film series) or Series name (film franchise), whichever is more accurate; this decision may require discussion on a case-by-case basis. If the series has no official name, choose one commonly used by reliable sources, such as Bourne (film series). When trilogies are often referred to as such by reliable sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy (e.g., Three Colors trilogy), or Series name trilogy (film series) if further disambiguation is required.

OR

For articles on a group of films that are related in any capacity, the title of the article should be Series name (film series), such as The Chronicles of Narnia (film series); if the series has no official name, choose one commonly used by reliable sources, such as Bourne (film series). When trilogies are often referred to as such by reliable sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy (e.g., Three Colors trilogy), or Series name trilogy (film series) if further disambiguation is required.

I prefer the first option, explicitly allowing for some degree of flexibility because one size doesn’t fit all. The second describes how some other editors here have said they use the word, which I disagree with, but the guideline should actually describe widely accepted practice, which (to my understanding) this does more accurately.. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per my arguments above. I'm unwilling to repeat myself. Daß Wölf 22:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: I don’t think your previous arguments address the second option presented here, which itself directly addresses our disagreements over the meaning of the word. Would you find the second option acceptable? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No. "Series of films" has worked just fine for us until know, so why change it? I agree with what Betty wrote way above: both of these proposals are essentially solutions looking for a problem. Daß Wölf 02:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There’s no need to look for a problem; just read this discussion, and you’ll find differing opinions on what a “series of films” is, including your own. That’s easily fixed by either method. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit preserves the “series of films” terminology while clarifying what it means for our purposes (that is, that a “series” includes reboots and sidequels). If it seems obvious to you, bear in mind that it’s quite counterintuitive to others. Please note that I strongly disagree with this interpretation, but if (as you say) it is widely the way this guideline is used, then the guideline should reflect actual practice for the time being. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh, I expected there to be some disagreement over this edit, but it’s been over a week with no responses or reverts. That’s good, seems like we’ve reached a consensus, even though I personally believe it’s the wrong consensus. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. No, there isn't a consensus, and (with all due respect) your edit doesn't conclude this discussion or address the problem that started it to begin with. I also don't agree with the edit, which doesn't really change anything that has already been established in the guidelines. Given that all the four of us (Tagging: @Betty Logan: and @Daß Wölf:) are doing is going through the same back-and-forth, we may need to take this discussion elsewhere or do something to reach a true consensus. Dark Knight 2149 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Does anyone here object to taking this to Dispute resolution? Tagging: @Betty Logan: @Daß Wölf: @67.14.236.50: Dark Knight 2149 21:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly do you think dispute resolution will achieve? We have heard all the arguments now so let's poll the community and just settle the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, no one seems interested in participating here. Despite us having left three different notifications at WP:FILM, this discussion has barely gotten any traffic and so far the only user (outside of the four of us) that has voted in the last three days is Scribolt. It's difficult to achieve a consensus and poll the community when the community doesn't want to show up. My suggestion isn't limited to WP:DSN; really, we just need help reaching a definitive result/consensus of some sort. We should wait another week or so, to see if anyone joins the poll (let's avoid canvassing specific users, though; that would just get messy) but if it's a dud, it's not like we can force users to join in and make them have an opinion. Dark Knight 2149 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

The survey is a bust. Much like the discussion itself, it received little traffic here and only one user voted within two weeks (aside the ~~usual~~ only four users that have been carrying the dispute). Dispute Resolution has already been suggested. If Betty Logan, Daß Wölf, 67.14.236.50, or anyone else has any other suggestions, now is probably the time. Dark Knight 2149 09:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In articles that exclusively describe an extended group of connected films (i.e. no other media besides films, but would possibly include spin-offs and reboots) such as The Conjuring (film series), should the film series disambiguator be retained or changed to franchise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Logan (talk • contribs)

Note: The above does not accurately describe the proposal at all. In fact, it is an oversimplification. See below. Dark Knight 2149 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retain (film series) I have brought up several reasons why I do not think we should change the disambiguator but I will summarise them here again for editors who do not wish to trawl through the discussion:
1. The view that a series denotes some "in universe" continuity is unnecessarily restrictive IMO, and not necessarily borne out by the facts. Would anyone dispute that Casino Royale (2006 film) which reboots the James Bond continuity is part of the same series of the films that came before it? A "series" is simply a collection where membership and sequencing is defined. Even the terms "reboot" and "spin-off" essentially define the film's relationship to other films in the series.
2. This is a disambiguator. Simply put a disambiguator is supposed to concisely define the scope of the topic and differentiate from other articles of the same name. If the article is exclusively about films then "film series" describes the content more clearly than "franchise", which could be about any number of things. Ultimately if you visit a disambiguation page and one of the titles is followed by "film series" it doesn't take a genius to figure out the article is about films. There is no evidence the current disambiguator is causing confusion for readers searching out articles.
3. Retaining "film series" actually allows us more wriggle-room, because it would allow us to have a three tier structure if necessary. For example you could have Star Wars (franchise), Star Wars (film series), and Star Wars (film). That isn't necessary in the case of Star wars but as multi-media franchises become more common it is only a matter of time before we end up doing this.
4. It would keep the naming guidelines consistent and simple: if an article is about a film then it is disambiguated as a "film"; an article exclusively about a sequence of films would be disambiguated as "film series"; an article about a multi-media property would be disambiguated as a "franchise".

Ultimately I tend towards a "if it aint broke don't fix it" view, and the proposal to change the disambiguator is a solution looking for a problem IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose: After all this discussion, it should be clear by now that this is not about completely moving everything over to (franchise). It's only about introducing the (film franchise), or simply (franchise), DAB for instances where the topic isn't just a singular film series (I.E. those with reboots, sequels to reboots, separate spin-off series, ETC). A film series is a subset of a franchise. The current "one size fits all" naming convention is simply inaccurate, and no matter which way you slice the pie, inaccuracy is a problem (see also: WP:PRECISION). This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.

The (film series) disambiguation will still be used wherever applicable.

1. Example #1 - Batman Forever and The Dark Knight Rises are both part of the Batman film franchise. However, they are not part of the same film series. In this instance, Batman (1989 film series) is a film series. The Dark Knight Trilogy is a film series. They are both part of the larger Batman film franchise, but are not the same series.
2. Example #2 - The Mummy (2017 film) and The Scorpion King 3 are both part of the larger Mummy film franchise, but they are again not in the same series. The Mummy (2017) is part of the current Mummy series (meant to tie in with other Universal properties), while The Scorpion King 3 is part of the Scorpion King series (a spin-off series of the 1990s Mummy trilogy). More proof that a series is a subset of a larger franchise.
3. Example #3 - Friday the 13th Part 2 and Friday the 13th (2009) are both part of the Friday the 13th franchise, but are not in the same series (in fact, the latter is a reboot, and any subsequent sequels to that film would continue the series it started).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - That's just it, it is broke. It has been argued that it's more simple to keep it the way it is, but we shouldn't continue to act on inaccuracies just because it's easy. Draw your attention to WP:PRECISION.

"Franchise" on its own does not automatically mean "multi-media", any more than "series" automatically means "film series". If scope is a problem, then a (film franchise) or (media franchise) DAB can easily be introduced.
1. It has been argued that my proposal causes more inaccuracies than good. However, they have failed to demonstrate this.
2. The links to reliable sources provided by Daß Wölf above further demonstrate (ironically, given his argument) that series are a subset of a larger franchise. In articles specifically about a single series, the (film series) DAB can stay.

If anyone has any questions about my proposal, feel free to ask. Dark Knight 2149 23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retain as per Betty Logan, particularly the first bullet point. I understand Darkknight2149's point of view but I've not seen any significant consensus within reliable sources to indicate that the naming convention he proposes is anything but sensible but non-universal. If it means different things to different people, WP:PRECISION cannot apply, and I'm not convinced that there's a problem to be fixed here. Scribolt (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: See the number of sources added above ([3], [4], [5], [6]) where a film series is treated as a subset of a larger franchise. "Film franchise" generally describes the body of works as a whole, while "series" describes a single chain of films within the franchise. There are moments where an article is only about a single film series, or there is only one series in a particular franchise. In these instances, it would be more appropriate to retain the (film series) DAB. Dark Knight 2149 15:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Of those four sources, three of them also use the term series within it to also describe the 'franchise'. I won't list all the occurrences, but here are a few. LA times: "Unlike DC's "Batman" series, the Marvel Cinematic Universe hasn't had to replace a lead actor." Not the Batman franchise. NY Times: "The Batman series, which foundered after the relatively lackluster results of its fourth film, Batman and Robin in 1997, is ripe for revival, they say." Variety "This is the sort of franchise that could easily descend into crude parody; the series’ creative team is to be commended for continuing to take the high road." Both in the same sentence. So, even in those examples the terms are used, if not interchangeably, at least inconsistently. And I know that if I Google more (which I did in relation to the Batman move) I'll find more inconsistencies. So, like I said, I understand your reasoning, but I don't think it's a well enough defined term to make it more precise than what we currently have. Scribolt (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: I fail to see any inconsistency. That first quote was referring to the current Batman series (starring Ben Affleck), in relation to the current-running Marvel Cinematic Universe. The New York Times quote is relatively understandable; it's saying that the Batman series died after Batman and Robin (which it did) and that the franchise needs a revival (there hasn't been a standalone Batman film since The Dark Knight Trilogy ended in 2012). The Variety quote starts off addressing the franchise as a whole, then commends the current series of said franchise for "continuing to the take the high road". Dark Knight 2149 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Are they only referring to the Ben Affleck films? That's not obvious to me, certainly, the significant changes in lead actor would more obviously relate to the earlier films in the series/franchise. I can see your point on the second one. I don't agree with your reading of the last example, the only other part of a MD franchise I'm aware of is the TV series, so it doesn't seem all that logical that the TV series could descend into parody, having an effect on the film trilogy. The sentence makes more sense if they're talking about the films throughout. Scribolt (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Retain as is. My argument for the most part boils down to Betty Logan's. Daß Wölf 14:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break 3

Sorry for coming back to the discussion late, but @Betty Logan talks above about the benefits of a three tier structure. What she’s opposing is in fact a four tier structure:

([media] franchise)
(film franchise)
(film series)
(film)

Maybe “film franchise” and “film series” mean precisely the same thing to you. That’s fine, but not everyone agrees on that definition, whereas we can all agree that a “film series” includes direct sequels and a “film franchise” includes spinoffs and reboots. (If you’re of the opinion that both include everything, then great, the point still holds.) This seems to be a matter of keeping things simple at the cost of a bit of precision, vs being precise at the cost of a bit of simplicity. Wikipedia isn’t based on a philosophy of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”; it’s based on constantly improving articles and the encyclopedia as a whole. This bit of differentiation is one such improvement. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that four tier proposal. Unfortunately, I don't think Betty Logan and Daß Wölf are going to see eye to eye (and we're pretty much the only four users participating in the discussion, at this point). That's why I suggested Dispute Resolution. After the failed survey (which garnered almost no editing traffic), I waited to see if anyone had any better suggestions as to how to proceed with the discussion. So far, there haven't been any. Dark Knight 2149 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d be up for a WP:DRN discussion, or a discussion anywhere else we could get some varied activity. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to trying WP:DRN now? Or any suggestions for anywhere else? @Betty Logan: you suggested a poll would settle the matter, somehow, but then seemed to misunderstand what it was we were discussing. DRN at least would allow each viewpoint to stand alone, without distortion. Pinging others: @Darkknight2149, Daß Wölf, and Scribolt. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Genuine question, what would be the benefit of using DRN as opposed to just holding an RfC? The original discussion (which included more than the 4 people mentioned), failed to establish that there was an issue with the existing content, and we have been respectfully disagreeing with each other since. DRN seems to be about imposing some order on emotional discussions, and then facilitating a talk page resolution (the board says that it doesn't replace TP discussion, and there have been many bytes of that already). It doesn't seem like a particularly effective use of anyone's time re-stating the positions at length at DRN and then being advised to hold an RfC to attract more people and doing it all over again. Why not cut out the middle-man? If you want to attract fresh faces, set up an RfC, advertise it and see if there's anyone who believes that there is an issue worth addressing. Scribolt (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I did ask for suggestions. If you think it best to have an RFC, we could have an RFC. I’ll write something up. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: Alternatively, might I ask what it would accomplish? We've already left multiple notifications at the WikiProject and done just about everything we can to draw attention to this post and reach consensus (which hasn't worked, even when we tried a definitive survey). No one seems interested in participating in the discussion, which is largely why it has only been carried by the four most passionate/involved users that have a P.O.V. in this matter. Early on, we got a few one-off responses, which either seemed to misinterpret the proposal as entirely replacing the (franchise) DAB, or they simply favoured simplicity (that's not to say there isn't value in simplicity, but it has been long established why simplicity shouldn't take precedence over accuracy). So far, the most enduring argument against the proposal is yours, and even it isn't anything definitive, as franchise and series are easy to use interchangeably, even if they don't have identical meaning. Take for instance, the word "reboot". Even authors that work for reputable sources like Entertainment Weekly have been known to occasionally misuse this word, even when referring to blatant sequels (the director had to come out in a separate interview, and directly state that it wasn't a reboot of any sort). This is hardly an isolated incident when it comes to the use of semantics in news sources. In 2015, I recall one source having the audacity to make a list of "the five best reboots of the year", only for most of it to be non-reboots like Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. As an encyclopedia, we are required to be more precise. And I doubt any one side of this argument is willing to yield under this circumstance, hence the potential need for dispute resolution. Dark Knight 2149 21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a different noticeboard, or somewhere we can take this to resolve the issue? I don't think the people watching the noticeboard seem to care or are preoccupied, given how many times we have notified them. Dark Knight 2149 22:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about others but it's not that I'm disinterested in the outcome: it's just that the circular, repetitive arguing is excruciating. I mean how many times do 3 or 4 people need to repeat their relatively unchanging viewpoints before the rest of us throw up our hands and say, "That it's... I'm checking out!"? To say this issue has reached an impasse is to grossly understate the matter. My own opinion is relatively the same as initially: I'm fine with the status quo, although I see how, at times, people can read "[blah] (film series)" and not get immediately that it refers to all films that originate from [blah] as opposed to the films that only share a title with [blah]. That being said, I don't think this occasional confusion and the vocal objections of what seem to be a handful of people here are sufficient to warrant changing the convention, possibly at least in part because I don't overall believe we have to have an article for every single thing under the sun, so I'm fine having just The Conjuring (film series) and not one article for just the films titled The Conjuring and another for the films titled Annabelle, and another for "Miscellaneous The Conjuring spin-offs that don't yet have sequels but as soon as they do hey let's create a new article for that subset too!" ad infinitum.

So yeah, if there's alternative to a seemingly endless back and forth, let's do that. Otherwise, status quo. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Joeyconnick Ah, I see (though, to be fair, everyone participating in the servey may have ended this. Though, I understand that you aren't intending to speak for everyone else). Yeah, I'm one of those four people and even I can see that this bickering isn't really achieving anything. Since you aren't one of the people that has been involved with our repetitive back-and-forth and have voiced your concerns, might I ask if you have a suggestion as to how we proceed to achieve consensus/conclusion? I personally don't think that an RfC will work, given how many times we have alerted WP:FILM. We tried the survey, which didn't get much attention. I suggested Dispute Resolution, but Scribolt and Betty Logan have expressed concerns that that may not work. We're kind of in a difficult situation.

One small thing I should clarify is that the proposal isn't intended to encourage franchise articles being split into multiple separate articles. It's only meant to address the titles of already existing articles. Dark Knight 2149 02:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry I don't know what to propose to resolve it. I've never actually seen a Wikipedia debate go on quite so long with no give on either side. That's why I would say just go with the status quo because there doesn't seem like there's a large contingent of people pushing the change (although to be fair, I have no experience with what actually constitutes "consensus" in a case like this). If I had been the person pushing for change, I myself would have given up long ago, hence why I've tried to ignore the discussion once it got to a certain point.

I do see what you mean that the proposal isn't meant to create new splits but I think it would probably have the inadvertent effect of encouraging that. Once "(film series)" isn't encompassing all films related to a property, it seems like it could very easily be interpreted as the appropriate way for grouping films that share a title, The Conjuring and its related properties being a prime example, although I assume there are others. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Here’s something to consider: many of our articles about, shall we say, a “messy” film series (with multiple sub-series, reboots, etc.) do not have film series or franchise in their titles.^[a] For instance, James Bond in film, Marvel Cinematic Universe, and J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World^[b] are well established. But unless I missed it, this guideline says nothing about such cases. It seems a fair bit too stringent to reflect actual practice. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

^ It also seems worth noting that The Hobbit (film series) and The Lord of the Rings (film series) do not have an umbrella article, despite the one being a direct prequel to the other.
^ We do have Harry Potter (film series), but Fantastic Beasts falls outside that series.

I’ve gone ahead and made an attempt. It still says to use “Series Name” where titles like the above are unsuitable. Please take care to note that I am not attempting to change the status quo; I’m attempting to accurately reflect the status quo, which is a Wikipedia guideline’s job. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's unsuitable because none of those articles are about franchises or series. James Bond in film refers to the character's appearances in film (or is supposed to), while the Marvel Cinematic Universe is about a cinematic universe composed of several different distinct (yet interconnected) franchises. As for J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World, it only appears to be about Harry Potter and its spin-offs, so it probably needs to be renamed to comply with our guidelines. Dark Knight 2149 17:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: The article James Bond in film actually serves the same function that a page titled James Bond (film series) (or film franchise) would be expected to, and the MCU is its own film franchise (a sub-franchise of the comic books, and consisting of several films and film series). I have no strong opinion about the “Wizarding World” naming. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I see no reason not to move it to James Bond (film series). Titles like (character) in film are supposed to be reserved for articles about the character's actual appearances in the other media, and not the media itself. As for Marvel Cinematic Universe, I disagree with it being one big franchise. Although the company name Marvel is a brand, Captain America, Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, ETC, are all distinct franchises in themselves. Captain America: The First Avenger would technically be placed in the same franchise as Captain America (1990) and not Iron Man 3, even though they are in the same universe and do crossover. But I digress; the disambiguation between "cinematic universe" (I.E. distinct film series like the new Godzilla or King Kong being interconnected) and "franchise" is an entirely separate can-of-worms, and this discussion is already in a deadlock as it is. In short, most of those examples would fall into WP:OTHERSTUFF, as those pages should probably be moved. Dark Knight 2149 00:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd stick with James Bond in film. Per WP:NCDAB we should typically use natural disambiguation wherever possible, and this is natural enough, and makes for less clutter than having a dozen articles titled "James Bond (...)". Daß Wölf 00:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: we should typically use natural disambiguation wherever possible—I thought so as well, but User:Betty Logan evidently feels differently: Natural disambiguation is not an automatic preference. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever the guideline is, I don't think the status quo can be improved here. Consider also that franchise/series pages are high-visibility and moving them would break many links from outside websites. Besides, should we really change a NC just to move a couple of articles, which is what this whole business would end up doing at best, if passed. Daß Wölf 02:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought the idea behind identifying naming conventions was to ensure future articles (and recently created ones) would be properly named. Inaccurately named articles should be renamed regardless of what any NC page says. The problem here is that we can’t seem to agree on what’s accurate or not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering how few articles would be affected, I don't see this as much of a problem. And anyway, "Inaccurately named articles should be renamed regardless of what any NC page says." -- isn't this an oxymoron? Daß Wölf 01:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How so? It’s perfectly possible for NC pages to be wrong and/or have exceptions. Not sure what’s oxymoronic about that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

“Primary film”

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I wanted to expand on my reversion of User:Born2cycle’s recent edit. To me, the shortcut’s fine, but incorporating it into the prose is redundant and… too “winky,” I guess would be a word for it. There is no mention of “PRIMARYTOPIC” in the text of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, for instance. Aside from that, the addition struck me as misleading, or possibly we just have different interpretations of what a “primary X” is (another reason to avoid such a term); I would consider a “primary film topic” to be undisambiguated beyond (film), even with multiple films, such as Titanic (film). Which we don’t do because having secondary primary topics would be confusing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this specific subject is being raised at this point in time may well be related to the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Menaka (1935 film)#Move to Menaka (1935 film). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. A user in that discussion claimed there is no such thing as a "PRIMARYFILM", implying primary topic did not apply to films. I thought that was nonsense and came here to make sure. Indeed, I found the section that is about films that are primary topics, and how to treat them. I think PRIMARYFILM is a useful term, and decided to include it in the text the way I did, but I don't feel strongly about having to use it there. The main thing is to have a convenient way to find and reference this section, for example in case the claim that films can't be primary topics is made again. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 05:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: The passage in question explicitly says not to do what you seem to be advocating. Among films named “Titanic,” the 1997 James Cameron film would undoubtedly be considered the primary topic; but it’s not the overall primary topic, thus Titanic (1997 film). We do not use a hierarchy of primariness. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur with the above; avoiding a "hierarchy" is exactly right. Disambiguation terms are not part of the average reader's search queries. Beyond a primary topic, all secondary topics must be disambiguated from each other. Since a reader who lands on the primary topic and then navigates to a disambiguation page of secondary topics, there is little need to get into the nitty-gritty of saying one secondary topic is more primary than the other. To do that maintains ambiguity when it is not needed. It is challenging enough to judge what topic is primary for a given term, and it is unnecessary to try to judge that for second-tier claiming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: I very much doubt that what you correctly said there registered. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disputed definitions

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

To resolve the varying disagreement among the (half-dozen, I think?) editors who’ve discussed it here, what would you think about setting up a Village Pump straw poll to ask the community at large what they think terms like “film series” and “film franchise” do and do not refer to? I ask that no one actually set up such a poll until we agree on wording and such. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

So what do you think of something like this? I was also considering offloading it to SurveyMonkey or something. @Betty Logan, Darkknight2149, and Daß Wölf:

This is an informal opinion survey to get a rough idea of what everyone thinks these terms mean. Please only vote once, and increment the count by 1 when you do. No need to sign, but there’s a space for discussion at the end.
In your own experience, what is a film series?

A sequence of sequels that directly continue a story
0

A collection of any number of films which take place in the same fictional universe
0

Any number of films using the same name, including sequels, spinoffs, remakes, reboots, etc.
0

A marketing term
0

All of the above
0

In your own experience, what is a film franchise?

A sequence of sequels that directly continue a story
0

A collection of any number of films which take place in the same fictional universe
0

Any number of films using the same name, including sequels, spinoffs, remakes, reboots, etc.
0

A marketing term
0

All of the above
0

In your own experience, what is a media franchise?

A sequence of sequels that directly continue a story
0

A collection of any number of films which take place in the same fictional universe
0

Any number of films using the same name, including sequels, spinoffs, remakes, reboots, etc.
0

Any number of films, TV shows, novels, comics, etc. taking place in the same fictional universe
0

A marketing term
0

All of the above
0

In your own experience, what is a cinematic universe?

A sequence of sequels that directly continue a story
0

A collection of any number of films which take place in the same fictional universe
0

Any number of films using the same name, including sequels, spinoffs, remakes, reboots, etc.
0

A marketing term
0

All of the above
0

Do any of these terms mean the same thing to you?

Film series and film franchise
Yes: 0

No: 0

Film franchise and media franchise
Yes: 0

No: 0

Film franchise and cinematic universe
Yes: 0

No: 0

== Discussion ==
…

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, creating a multiple choice survey like this isn't going to solve anything in an already controversial discussion. If anything, it will only confuse the entire matter even more, because everyone will pick their own choices from the variety of unspecific suggestions given, and will each come up with their own radically different result. Frankly, this is no substitute for actual discussion, and you should also take a look at WP:VOTE. We should be finding ways to simplify the discussion and bring it to a close, not make it even more convoluted than it already is. Dark Knight 2149 03:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Re VOTE, my immediate goal here isn’t consensus through polling, but to get a frame of reference, an idea of where the community at large currently stands. I don’t see a way forward without knowing what definitions we’re operating with, and there doesn’t seem to be an authoritative source for them. If results are scattered, then it’s probably hopeless, but if certain options lead by a landslide (whatever those options are), that gives us something to aim for. A poll seemed to me the simplest and quickest way to get a wide range of responses. If there’s a better/simpler method, I’m eager to hear it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I see what your intention is, but creating a multiple choice essay will only serve to complicate matters even more. If no one voted on the initial survey, then it's highly doubtful that they will respond to a quiz. And there is a reason we generally do not create multiple choice quizzes like this; everyone will just come up with their own unique result (regardless of the topic), and discussion (I.E. explaining one's P.O.V. and talking with others about their's) is how we handle things on Wikipedia, as it is far more effective. This will scare away potential responders, not attract them. We need to be brainstorming ways to conclude this discussion with some sort of consensus, not unintentionally make things worse. My recommendation would be to go ahead and close this. I think all of the other dubious suggestions (Dispute Resolution, RfC, ETC) would probably be more effective than creating multiple choices and expecting people to go through them. Dark Knight 2149 01:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no present intention to make any further attempts to edit this page, but I’m tempted to request unprotection just on principle. Without any discussion on the matter here, semi-protection of this page was quietly considered at WT:FILM and requested about a month ago with unsubstantiated claims of WP:disruptive editing; when approached, the accusing editor was unable to point out any actual DE behavior, and actually seemed to misunderstand what the term meant, invoking the guideline in name only. Rather, the protection request itself actually seems like a (albeit weak) DE tactic, one intended to disrupt progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia.

Just had to get that off my chest. If anyone can offer any substance to the accusation, I welcome it, because WP:DE is bad and I don’t want to be bad. But like I said, I’m done trying to edit this until someone figures out a way to work out what words mean what to more than five people. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that I just now noticed this and am a bit late. I see where Betty Logan is coming from, ~~but I think she may have slightly over-reacted and should have mentioned this to 67.14.236.50 before requesting protection~~. I think they were trying to be genuinely helpful, but Logan is correct that you (now speaking directly to 67.14.236.50) shouldn't interpret silence as consensus. It's understandable that it's difficult to know what to do in a discussion that has been effectively deadlocked, but you shouldn't take matters into your own hands by editing WP:NCF yourself in periods of silence. Dark Knight 2149 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I just noticed the edit warring on the article's edit history. It's best not to do that :/ Dark Knight 2149 22:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Problematic sentence in foreign film titles section

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

"If the film has never been widely released in the English-speaking world, it is not assumed to have a commonly-recognized English name; in such cases, the native name is to be preferred over potentially variant translated titles used in English-language reliable sources."

This sentence should not exist. If films have been reviewed by reliable sources at film festivals, articles should use those title, per WP:COMMONNAME. The sentence above contradicts that and causes arguments such as this. So, I propose removing this sentence entirely, as it seems to be counterproductive. — Film Fan 16:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Even when a film has been released in the English-speaking world under an English title, the English title may still not be accepted, as exemplified by the 2013 discussion at Talk:Sette note in nero#Italian titles vs English titles and, four years later, at Talk:Sette note in nero#Requested move 30 January 2017. There is no specific argument within the discussion over the term "widely released" so the meaning of "widely" does not not appear to be the sticking point. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The guideline should not refer to the release at all, wide or otherwise. Common usage in reliable sources should be all that matters. — Film Fan 18:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This comes down to our core policy WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:Article titles - "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". This guideline can give advice on interpreting that, but shouldn't conflict as this section seems to. --Netoholic @ 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Good that this has been brought up here. In the RM that was cited by the nom, I brought up this sentence as being part of the community consensus in this guideline. In its present form, this guideline appears to make it clear that no amount of coverage in English reliable sources – no amount – is as important as the "native-language" title under which the film is released. Apparently, this is precisely what the nom wants to change. The nom thinks that if a variant English title is well-used and well-covered in English language sources, even if the time period is only about a month, then the variant English translation (under which the film has never been released, having been released only under its native-language title) is more important than the actual title of the film. And here we are – wondering if the nom might be correct. I was going to open a new requested move to rename Murder Me, Monster to its Spanish release title, Muere, Monstruo, Muere in accord with this guideline; however, perhaps what this really adds up to is an RfC to see just what the community actually wants here. Do we want to use just any English variant translation just because it's commonly used in reliable sources over the period of about a month? Or, does the community want to continue to guide editors to use the native-language title no matter how much variant English titles are used in reliable sources? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 20:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A key aspect in supporting the contention that a non-English language film has been distributed in the English speaking world under an English title is a film poster. Murder Me, Monster has an English poster. Sette note in nero/The Psychic also has an English poster. The title with the longest discussion regarding this topic — 2012's Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move is another one with an English poster and was distributed both in Britain and America as Band of Outsiders. Nevertheless, the English titles for latter two films were not accepted for the main header by a considerable number of votes. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Two things... 1) it appears that a movie poster in English is not (yet?) accepted by the community to denote that any variant English translation of a foreign-language film title should title a Wikipedia article, and 2) in the specific instance cited by the nom, no one actually contended that the Argentinian film had been released in English-speaking countries; however some seem to think that at least one variant English translation, "Murder Me, Monster", should still be thought of as an "official" title, whether or not the film was released under that title. (It wasn't.) As is customary on the Cannes website, the release title in Spanish was followed by a variant English translation in parentheses. So that was enough in some eyes to call the translation an "official" title of the film. Of course, the only title the film has been released under is the native Spanish language title, Muere, Monstruo, Muere. Unfortunately, my simple words in that RM debate were unable to clearly explain this guideline to participants. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 04:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I sort of involved myself as the closer of the Muere, Monstruo, Muere RM; I'm well-versed with AT policies (but I'm not into film world), and I made the close chiefly on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE, which can be summarized as "use the form of the title [be it translation, transliteration, endonym or exonym] which is most common in English-language sources". Now, the guideline obviously should not contradict the policy; on re-reading, I find it at best ambiguous and at worst contradictory. Let me nitpick (bold mine):

If the film has never been widely released in the English-speaking world, it is not assumed to have a commonly-recognized English name; in such cases, the native name is to be preferred over potentially variant translated titles used in English-language reliable sources.

First, "it is not assumed" ≠ "it is assumed not to". Taken on face value, it just says that it might not have a common English name, not that it certainly does not.
Second, "in such cases" is hopelessly ambiguous – does it relate to "not have a common English name" or to "has never been released in English world"?

To be compliant with policy (well, and my close) and unambiguous, it should be at least rewritten:

If the film has never been widely released in the English-speaking world, it might not have a commonly-recognized English name; in that case, the native name is to be preferred over potentially variant translated titles used in English-language reliable sources.

I believe that was the original intent, and I interpreted it as such on the RM close, anyway, but just now I see how it can be read differently. No such user (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Good points. You're right that "it is not assumed" ≠ "it is assumed not to", and I'm kicking myself for not picking up on that before, and I agree that at the very least a minor rewording is necessary. But I still don't see any significance in whether or not the film has been released. If a film has been reviewed by major outlets, and/or clearly been given an official English title by the production company(s) or other reliable sources, of what relevance is the actual release (wide or otherwise)? — Film Fan 13:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That, too. I believe some kind of extended guidance is beneficial in a SNG such as this, so I wouldn't advocate full deletion, but it should be made unambiguous. Additionally, has never been widely released could be softened to is not widely known or like; film release is a too narrow category, since a foreign film (or any other piece of art) can be widely known (such as from a festival or as a cult film) without ever being distributed and released in an English-speaking country. No such user (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That may very well be what should be meant by this foreign language section of the guideline; however, it wouldn't really change much for a film that was released just a month ago, would it? Is a month long enough to accept a variant English translation as the common name for the film on Wikipedia? If we were to put ourselves in the shoes of the producers and director of such a film, how would we feel when we look up our film in an encyclopedia only to find that instead of its release title, the film article is titled with a variant English translation? It's bad enough to find this same situation at IMDb, which may be one reason why IMDb is considered an unreliable source and relegated to External links sections. If I had made the film, I would want to see it listed under the title I gave it in the language I used to name it. That is the common name until I have released it in English-speaking countries under an English title of my choosing. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

But Murder Me, Monster was the title given by producers and director and then taken over by Western press; nobody made anything up. Let me repeat Film Fan's links from the nom:
- CINESTACIóN (click "EN" to get to English page)
- Rouge International
- La Unión de los Ríos production house
- The Match Factory

I can see that there could be variable translations in cases of old films or ones with multiple English releases, but not in this case. And I'd say that most modern foreign-language films with any international ambition (not necessarily a wide distribution) will have an English title prepared by the authors or producers, which is not necessarily an exact translation. No such user (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I do see now how such sources might be misconstrued. After all, there are producer web sites that have chosen to publish English language pages on the web, and have chosen a variant English translation to use on those pages, so it becomes easy to assume that they might want the variant translation to be used everywhere that English is used. Can we assume that? Can we assume that just because there are websites that are savvy enough to translate into English, that the English name they show for the film is a "release title" for the film? or is it just a variant English translation that is not actually the release title? In the RM it was explicitly stated that because of the links given above, the variant English translation is also considered to be an "official" release title. Where exactly does it say that? What exactly leads editors to assume that's the case? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 15:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Because there's nothing "variant" about it, no matter how much you repeat that word. — Film Fan 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't see "Murder Me, Monster" as a variant translation of "Muere, Monstruo, Muere"? It varies from both the Spanish title and from the literal translation, "Die, Monster, Die", doesn't it? So it is indeed "variant", no matter how much you deny it. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 00:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The distribution of professionally produced film posters is an expensive proposition not to be undertaken lightly. This poster, with its English-language title and text, obviously indicates that the producers and/or distributors of Murder Me, Monster in the English-speaking world, intend that this film's English title should be Murder Me, Monster and not Die, Monster, Die or Muere, Monstruo, Muere. A comparison may be made with the English-language poster for the film Y Tu Mamá También, which kept its original title in the English-speaking world, although not its original orthography (in the Spanish-speaking world the title is rendered as Y tu mamá también, in the same manner as Muere, Monstruo, Muere is rendered in the Spanish-speaking world as Muere, monstruo, muere. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types . Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Popeye the Sailor (animated cartoons)

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

According to NCFILM, what should the above article be moved to? – Maybe Popeye the Sailor (film series)?... It's hard to find a related article with disambiguation, as those like Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes are at the base title, so I'm not sure what the correct disambiguation for this Popeye article should be... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The only disambiguation term NCF advocates is "film series" and I don't see any good reason why that can't be used in this case. I agree it is not typical usage but it's not incorrect usage and would sufficiently disambiguate. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Not related to this, but more to your comment. I just noticed that NCF does not mention film serials. Is that disambiguation not supported or is it supported and just somehow left out of the guideline (examples: Captain America (serial), Fantômas (1913 serial))? --Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not supported at WP:NCF, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. While Captain America (serial) could be renamed Captain America (1944 film series) I don't have any great objection to drawing a distinction between a "serial" and a "film series" (although "film serial" would be more appropriate for film articles e.g. Captain America (film serial) ). Perhaps we should get more project input and see where everyone else stands on this. Consistency is key to diambiguation, so we should either rename these articles or bring the disambiguators under the NCF umbrella. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018. This is a requested move looking to establish a consensus on how to name "OVA" series-type anime titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Serial disambiguation

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

The guideline does not address how film serials should be disambiguated when needed. Is it "(serial)" or "(film serial)". The use of "serial" is also used for TV disambiguation (and possibly radio) as there is Serial (radio and television) (example: The Hound of the Baskervilles (TV serial)). --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We briefly discussed this above in regards to Popeye film serials. If "film series" is not appropriate and you want the "serial" in there, I would definitely go with "film serial" so that it is consistent with "film series", and of course to distinguish it as a film topic. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I knew I asked that somewhere! I only searched the archives and not this page as I was sure it was longer ago, so thanks for pointing that out. I don't mind using "film series", I just wanted to see what the correct style was. Do you think we could added this to the guideline, either way? There should be quite a few articles that have this. --Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus to add it. You should give a brief outline of your proposal and start a survey below so that editors can either support or oppose. I'd be happy to support something like this. Present your proposal like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)/Archive 2#RFC: Clarifying the intended meaning at the top of the article, but without actually turning it into an RFC (this would just waste community time for something that is not controversial). Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding disambiguation for film serials

I propose adding to the guideline information regarding disambiguation for film serial articles. This can be done by either using the current "(film series)" and then changing the text at WP:NCF#Film series to For articles on a series of films and film serials, the title of the article should be Series name (film series) (addition in bold), or adding a new disambiguation type of "(film serial)" with its own section below the Film series section. Use of "film serial" and not "serial" is to distinguish the article from serials of other media (similar to "film series" and not "series"). --Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Support I am happy to have "film serial" as an option for the disambiguator. I feel there is enough of a substantive difference between the "serial by design" nature and modern day film series to justify a different form of disambiguation. For example, the Batman serials of the 1940s, where basically each serial is one film broken up into episodes, are very different in format to the Batman film series of the 1980s onwards which is a proper series of films. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Our main article for this genre is at serial film, at odds with the proposed disambiguator. I also I don't think this is a major problem as it affects a small (and finite) set of articles, not enough to add potential confusion to the guideline. Obviously, this should only apply to early 20-century serials where they are predominantly described in sources as such, but I fear it would be misused. We also should consider alignment with other mediums like radio serials (aka radio drama). Perhaps we need to take a look at some currently problematic examples, and if needed, run them through some test RMs? It certainly seems like most items under the Category:Film serials tree use simply (serial) or (year serial), so the propose change would represent a lot of renaming. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't exactly understand your argument - you say it affects a small set of articles but then say the propose change would represent a lot of renaming which contradicts your previous statement. I also don't understand what you oppose exactly - the items listed in the category you've linked to don't follow any guideline, so following the current guideline, they should be (film series), which was an option I presented. Would be great if you actually contribute an option instead of just opposing and sending us to RM. --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  - Its not a contradiction - there aren't a lot of film serials (in comparison with TV series or films), but almost all of the ones currently disambiguated are using simply (serial), so your proposed change would require renaming all of those. My contributed option is called "oppose". If you're asking me to suggest something to add to this guideline, I already said (serial) is what is in common use now, but that adding it to the guideline is unnecessary and may add to confusion (or WP:CREEP). List out the articles you think are currently, problematically named (which your guideline change is presumably meant to address), and we can take a look at some real examples. -- Netoholic @ 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    If disambiguation for serials is already taking the form of a different type of disambiguator that strengthens the case for standardising it in the naming conventions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    This is a very finite number of affected articles. Presumably any outliers could go through RM, and then there would be no need for further inclusion in the naming convention, per WP:CREEP. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    TBH, I don't see how WP:CREEP applies to a particular case. Surely the "creep" occurred when we created the naming conventions page? We either have a formalism for naming articles or we don't. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support – this strikes me as a no-brainer kind of proposal, though I'd probably prefer just "(film series)", and would deprecate any use of "(film serial)". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- No brainer? Right now we already have at least five options: (serial)-what the vast majority of these articles already use, (film serial)-Gonnym's proposal, (serial film)-to match the main article at serial film, (film series)-your preference, or status quo-no formal change to guideline. I doubt we're going to solve this quickly. -- Netoholic @ 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  Whether it is "film serial", or "serial film", or just "serial" or even "film series" is besides the point. It can be any one of these, but it probably should only be one of these. The issue is really about consistency more than anything else. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Support having a preferred and distinct disambiguator for serials, but whether this is "film serial" or "serial film" doesn't make much difference to me. Will see how the RM discussion goes. PC78 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambigiation for film articles

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Question: Should a film article be disambiguated by year if there is only one article with that title on Wikipedia, but if other films are known to exist and are listed on the disambiguation page? In other words, should we pre-emptively disambiguate with potential film articles that have not yet been written?

This is partially with regards to the currently ongoing move request discussion at Talk:Stop (2015 film), which has turned out to be less straightforward than I initially thought, but also seeks to resolve the larger question moving forwards. The naming conventions for music at WP:NCMDAB says "do not pre-emptively disambiguate a page", and specifically at WP:ALBUMDAB and WP:SONGDAB states that "unless more than one article about [albums/songs] of the same name exist, there is no need to disambiguate any further"; this was the outcome of an RFC three years ago. Should a similar statement be added to this page with regard to films?

My own personal feeling is that we should always use the shortest form of disambiguation available, and that it makes little sense to disambiguate with articles that may never exist and for which notability is not shown. But what do others think? I can turn this into a formal RfC later if necessary. PC78 (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I have never really thought about this before. The general rule of thumb on the Film project has been to not pre-emptively disambiguate, so you could argue that a consensus exists through standard practice. However, WP:PRECISE states "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". That instruction does not preclude pre-emptive disambiguation, and you could argue even encourages it. While Stop (film) may be sufficient to disambiguate the article, it is arguably not sufficient to unambiguously identify the topic, which is the 2015 film. Could somebody type "Stop (film)" into the Wikipedia search box and assume the article is about one of the other films by that title? Sure, because we can't expect readers to know which films are documented on Wikipedia. If that is the case then does the title comply with WP:PRECISE, which is a policy? Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I don't understand the latter argument, I just don't see how it can be reasonably applied. How many "missing" film articles do we have? There are undoubtably thousands of articles that would need additional qualifiers adding to their current titles if we went down that road. Using the above example, IMDb lists at least six shorts titled Stop from 2015 alone, so should the one artlce we have actually be titled Stop (2015 South Korean-Japanese film), or Stop (2015 feature film), even when a shorter title is available? I think it would just lead to an endless cycle of disambiguation for disambiguation's sake. PC78 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My answer would be "no", as doing so is an example of "preemptive disambiguation" which we don't do on Wikipedia. Now, if even a redirect exists for one of the other films (and obviously if there are articles on the other films), then you do have to disambiguate by year. But, in the absence of that, I say "no", even if there are "no link" entries at the disambiguation page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with regard to redirects, since these are not articles and do not in any way confer notability. PC78 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#U.S./American in WikiProject Film/Television

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#U.S./American in WikiProject Film/Television. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC) -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Remake in multiple languages within same country

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

India has multiple languages, and frequently films are remade in other languages. Would it make sense to have XYZ (Hindi Film) and XYZ (Gujarati film), because that's more like to be searched that way. Rather than XYZ (2018 film) and XYZ (2019 film)? Coderzombie (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's the same year, then by language would make sense (for India only). If it's only a year or two apart, then the {{distinguish}} template should be used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The rationale section says, "We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines". If the same name film is made in multiple languages, people are likely to search by language, rather than year. Wouldn't it make sense to have language rather than year? Coderzombie (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That section relates to non-English titles, per the example of The Seventh Seal, compared to Det sjunde inseglet. If someone was searching for the XYZ film, but did not know the year (or indeed the language), they'd be in the same boat. They'd likely put "XYZ film" into either Google or the search box here and be taken to the disambig page. For example, do you know all the years of release for A Star Is Born? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I second Lugnuts in that it should be used only for films of the same year, as in "XYZ (2018 Hindi film)" and "XYZ (2018 Gujarati film)" . We use "XYZ (2007 Australian film)" and "XYZ (2007 American film)", not "XYZ (Australian film)" and "XYZ (American film)". The years of first release must remain the primary and default disambiguator. Nardog (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use the language links as redirects at least, that way readers have a very easy time finding their articles no matter if they search for year or not.★Trekker (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming films

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

Current advice regarding upcoming films where a release date is not yet known is as follows: "For upcoming films where the release date is currently unknown, use (upcoming film) if disambiguation is necessary, for example Wikipedia (upcoming film)."

Title such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) have no long term value and are frequently deleted at WP:RfD. I would therefore like to suggest that, where possible, we use titles such as Wikipedia (Alan Smithee film) which would continue to have purpose as redirects after an article has settled at its proper title. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that would make sense.★Trekker (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this should be dealt with by making it possible to speedy delete "... (upcoming film)" redirects rather than introducing a different disambiguator. Using a term that implies anything other than the date or state of release leads to a situation where we have articles named e.g. "XYZ (2010 film)" and "XYZ (Alan Smithee film)" at the same time, which upsets the equilibrium achieved by using the release year as the default disambiguator. Nardog (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I would not feel bad deprecating "(upcoming film)", but I'd not want to replace it with a different new disambiguation method, like director. Perhaps we should use country disambiguation, as the country of origin is almost always known when a new movie is announced: for example, Let It Snow (American film) instead of Let It Snow (upcoming film). Such redirects would then continue to be useful to retain post-release. -- Netoholic @ 12:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest to do when Let It Snow (2001 film) is also an American film? Nardog (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Since its currently a redlink anyway, create the article for the upcoming film at Let It Snow (American film), place a hatnote there directing people to Let It Snow (2001 film) (and vice-versa). Post-release, when the upcoming film is moved to its (year film) title, then the leftover redirect at Let It Snow (American film) can be repointed to the disambiguation page Let It Snow (disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 12:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in "American film" that specifies the upcoming film rather than the 2001 film, which runs counter to WP:PRECISION. What's the point of a disambiguator that does not fully disambiguate? And what justifies the use of the country for upcoming films only? If we allowed that, it wouldn't really make sense we allow "Noise (2007 Australian film)" but not "Noise (Australian film)", unless it doesn't have a release date yet. Your suggestion makes no sense to me. Nardog (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What is inherently wrong with using "upcoming film"? Redirects are cheap either way, to be left alone or to be deleted. To use a non-temporal disambiguation is to be inconsistent with film disambiguation terms generally used. It's going to lead to unnecessary confusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It leaves behind outdated and sometimes confusing redirects and creates work for WP:RfD; that should be perceived as a problem. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with using an alternative form of disambiguation when the situation calls for it. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem with "upcoming" either. I see more problems with adding "Director's film" to it, because it implies that somehow this one person is the single most important factor in the film being created. What happens when the director changes because of creative differences? Then you're back to having to delete the redirect. I'd be supportive of allowing "upcoming film" be a speedy deletion candidate if necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with upcoming as well. I don't think it's worth the time and effort to bother listing them for deletion either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree that "(upcoming film)" is fine and non-problematic. It makes it clear the film does not yet exist, which disambiguating by director or country does not. Adding in the expected film year is actually a recipe for the proliferation of a lot more ultimately unneeded redirects which would be more confusing and can create a lot of cases where the final article is linked to via a confusing morass of previous release-date titles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm very much against using any title which is bound to be deleted, as it will necessarily create broken links. Notably, some search engines such as Bing are often slow to update Wikipedia page URLs in the search results. We may quickly move the page to the new title and delete "(upcoming film)" and Bing users will keep landing on the deleted redirect for months. Redirects may be WP:CHEAP and irrelevant, but this is a tangible consequence of their use -- better to pick an appropriate title from the get-go. Daß Wölf 21:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 9#"Upcoming" subjects no longer upcoming (and the discussion above as well). Perfect example of how redirects are costly. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete disambiguation matter

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

The 2019 film Parasite has been moved from Parasite (2019 film) to Parasite (film). See RM discussion here: Talk:Parasite (film)#Requested move 2 September 2020 (permalink). This move, based on WP:INCDAB, conflicts with WP:NCF where we have the 1997 film Titanic at Titanic (1997 film). Policy at WP:PRECISION indicates respecting Wikipedia projects' naming conventions. Here, if Parasite can be moved, I see no reason why the same logic can be applied to Titanic. I've discussed this matter with the closing admin and those who support incomplete disambiguation as seen here. To quote myself from that, "...films are going to be susceptible to this 'relatively rare' approach since films are more prolific in today's world than other types of media and are more likely to have Wikipedia articles than books. This means that there will be numerous sets of films with the same title that is rooted in a primary topic, and the newer films will more likely have more page views than the older ones."

I ask other editors what they think of incomplete disambiguation. Regarding Parasite, I was considering WP:MR or starting a new WP:RM discussion, the latter because the closing admin didn't see that the opposing !votes were favoring the original disambiguation policy. Furthermore, the RFC that allowed certain editors to push for more ambiguity was based on cricketers, where films are actually going to be on the receiving end of this incomplete-disambiguation business because of what I said above. So it may be appropriate to have an RFC to see the role that films would play in this. Otherwise, it seems obvious to me that this can be used as precedent to promote the most popular (often newer) film from a set of secondary-topic films to be a primary secondary-topic film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It should not have been moved because it contravenes WP:PRIMARYFILM. WP:PRIMARFILM is not a "local consensus"; it is guideline in Wikipedia's manual of style. While the manual of style may permit partial disambiguation in some cases, it clearly does not for film articles. The issue of partial disambiguation has been resolved for film titles. Prior to the page move the title did not contravene the manual of style, but now it does. The RFC should be reviewed IMO. The MOS was correctly interpreted by the majority of respondents and the closer has overruled them and the MOS with their own personal opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What would be your response to WP:INCDAB, in general or as applied to film? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously if you have a film article at the primary topic it should direct there. But if you don't and you have a disambiguation page it should redirect there. I personally would redirect Parasite (film) to Parasite_(disambiguation)#Film_and_television. If neither scenario applies then you possibly have to re-evaluate the disambiguation of your topics. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is WP:PRIMARYFILM doesn't mention either WP:INCDAB or WP:PDAB, so it doesn't say it doesn't apply to films. It can well be interpreted that INCDAB and PDAB are more specific regarding primary topics of partially disambiguated titles, and thus trumps over PRIMARYFILM—as I did in that RM—, since PRIMARYFILM doesn't even take into account when films are more searched, known, or popular than others. If INCDAB and PDAB truly don't apply to films, then it should be explicitly stated there. El Millo (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone contemplating a "fix" to an inconsistency between a specialized guideline and a general guideline by specifying a contradiction to the general guideline in the specialized guideline needs to stop and reconsider. What they need to do is make the specialized guideline consistent with the general guideline. The whole point of general guidelines is to have consistency across all articles on WP. Specialized guidelines are there to fill in the gaps - specifying guidance specific to a particular set of articles in areas where the general guidelines are silent. That's not the case with treatment of primary topics and partially disambiguated titles with primary topics. General guidance on this is quite clear. --В²C ☎ 04:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad close which goes against the high bar for PDAB and NCFILM specifically. It should be challenged. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The high bar was met with 99% of the page views of all films named Parasite. This was not even questioned. As noted above and in the RM NCFILM doesn’t address PDABs. So INCDAB trumps NCFILM in this issue. —В²C ☎ 00:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that is nonsense. We simply require all secondary topics to be disambiguated from each other. That includes Titanic. You're setting up for wasteful discussions when the matter could properly be simpler per this Wikipedia project's preferred naming conventions. You seem like such a zealot to push for this so hard all the time. I see that you pushed for this back in 2017. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've said at the RM from Titanic, this whole discussion is nonsense. We need to discuss the guideline itself, and decide whether PDAB applies to films or not, whether the wording at PRIMARYFILM actually overrides PDAB even if it doesn't explicitly mention it, and lastly which is this "higher standard" for partial disambiguations. I suggest the Titanic RM be paused for now, and Parasite (film) be restored to Parasite (2019 film) until we've settled this down. Otherwise, Erik is just completely disregarding the existence of WP:PDAB and В²C is just personally choosing the higher standard that needs to be met. As I hope it's clear by my vote at the RM for Parasite, I would side with B²C here, but if you check Nohomersryan's !vote at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020, you'll see they have a very different view on what a "higher standard" is. Until we've decided which one is the standard to meet, both all and none of these are valid. El Millo (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Erik, the claim that NCFILM requires all secondary topics to be disambiguated from each other, even when a partially disambiguated title of one of them meets the higher standard per WP:INCDAB (I've addressed Nohomersryan's interpretation of what that higher standard should be at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 12 September 2020), is the problem. If the claim is true, then NCFILM needs to be brought in line with INCDAB. In the mean time, that particular guidance needs to be ignored per WP:IAR. It makes no sense to treat film articles differently from all other titles on WP with respect to PDABs. --В²C ☎ 04:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The high bar is a measure of consensus among discussion participants, not page views. Otherwise we could replace all RM discussions with a bot that looks at web stats. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional language

With Parasite (film) being moved back to Parasite (2019 film), I have boldly added language to address WP:INCDAB. As the policy page WP:PRECISION indicates, Wikipedia project-specific naming conventions are permissible. If the general guidelines at WP:DAB are supposed to override WikiProjects' conventions, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should force Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) to be at Leeds North West and should force M-185 (Michigan highway) to be at M-185. Yet the policy page indicates that these are permissible. Disambiguating secondary-topic films by release year is extremely minimal compared to these other examples' detailed parenthetical disambiguation terms. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

[1] It also seems worth noting that The Hobbit (film series) and The Lord of the Rings (film series) do not have an umbrella article, despite the one being a direct prequel to the other.

[2] We do have Harry Potter (film series), but Fantastic Beasts falls outside that series.

[a]

[b]