james duffy wrote: this and film ended up replacing actual film linked with the replaced on wiki by 'talkie'. we need to change 'movie'. It is a word applied to heavily Willis saves the conclusion, with of merchandising to relation to 'film' 'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin something with Arnie, anyone ever heard of a In which case a disambiguator of '(movie)' is totally appropriate for the works of which you're contemptuous, eh? In fact, people could tell from the use of '(film)' vs '(movie)' in the article title whether it's one that you approve of, and thus know how to evaluate the worthiness of the article before reading it. But seriously, there are a hundred ways that I could look down my nose at, say, Ireland and the Irish, yet you don't see me spewing those out at every opportunity. So cool it with the cultural superiority guff - nobody is actually interested in your opinion on what kind of material they should admire. Of course, you're welcome to try to convince people to disambiguate with '(film)', but let me give you a hint - they'll be a lot easier to convince if you treat them with respect. Stan

On Sat, 3 May 2003 21:58:43 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> gave utterance to the following: I was about to raise my hand in favour of movie for the reason that film

ambiguous but movie isn't. As to usage, movie is one word I don't regard as an americanism (it probably arrived in NZ with the troops during WWII). New Zealanders will say they are going to the movies, to see a movie, to the pictures, but

will seldom say "to a film" or "to the cinema". I think "the flicks" has almost died out as a term.

Jtdirl wrote:

>>The Cunctator wrote:

>>>We actually did have a big discussion about this and film ended up being >>>nixed because of the problem of digital video replacing actual film as the >>>medium for "films". Thus, "movie".

>If that is the case, then surely 'movie', a word linked with the >silent world of moving pictures, should be replaced on wiki by 'talkie'.

>And if the Cunctator's assertion is correct, then we need to change >it. Non-Americans do not generally use the word 'movie'. It is a word >only occasionally used outside the US and usually applied to heavily >Americanised Hollywood-ised blockbusters; Bruce Willis saves the >world, gets the girl and wisecracks his way to the conclusion, with >the promise of 5 sequels and billions of dollars of merchandising to >come. In fact 'movie' is used internationally in relation to 'film' >the way 'fast food' is used in relation to 'cuisine'. Stuff by Quentin >Tarantino is often described as 'film' whereas something with Arnie, >Sly or that genre is invariably a 'movie'. And anyone ever heard of a >'movie noir'?

In which case a disambiguator of '(movie)' is totally appropriate for the works of which you're contemptuous, eh? In fact, people could tell from the use of '(film)' vs '(movie)' in the article title whether it's one that you approve of, and thus know how to evaluate the worthiness of the article before reading it.