Could someone with sysop powers please permanently delete the "Young and Innocent" page? It redirects to Ernest Hemingway, and there are no links to that page either.
The reason is that Hitchcock's movie of the same name (which I'm going to rename "movie" instead of "film") cannot be found otherwise ("database error").
Thanks in advance,
KF
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:44:44PM +0200, K Forstner wrote:
The reason is that Hitchcock's movie of the same name (which I'm going to rename "movie" instead of "film")
Erm. Why?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Williams" jason@jasonandali.org.uk To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The "Young and Innocent" page
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:44:44PM +0200, K Forstner wrote:
The reason is that Hitchcock's movie of the same name (which I'm going
to
rename "movie" instead of "film")
Erm. Why?
Why what? In case you want to know why I have moved the article from "Young and Innocent (film)" to "Young and Innocent (movie)": Disambiguating film titles is commonly done in Wikipedia by adding the word "(movie)" rather than "film". There are plenty of examples (Notting Hill, Suspicion, etc.).
In case you want to know why the "Young and Innocent" page should, IMHO, be deleted: Because it is unnecessarily confusing and obsolete anyway.
Does this answer your question?
KF
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:50:58PM +0100, Jason Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:44:44PM +0200, K Forstner wrote:
The reason is that Hitchcock's movie of the same name (which I'm going to rename "movie" instead of "film")
Erm. Why?
Okay, so there's a naming convention on this at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(movies)
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
Okay, so there's a naming convention on this at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(movies)
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
No idea. I think someone (an American?) must have started using the word "movie". Personally, I'd rather have an "ugly" word than one that might lead to confusion.
KF
Jason Williams wrote:
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
That "movie" is ugly is a pretty ad hoc aesthetic judgment, don't you think?
At any rate, perhaps there was a discussion somewhere about this?
--Jimbo
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:10:39AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jason Williams wrote:
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
That "movie" is ugly is a pretty ad hoc aesthetic judgment, don't you think?
Of course; since it's quite obviously subjective I assumed people would assume that I was stating it as such :-) I wasn't trying to argue for wholesale replacement of "movie" by "film", just the same admirable agnosticism that is applied across the rest of the wikipedia.
At any rate, perhaps there was a discussion somewhere about this?
I expect so, but I couldn't find it by googling the mailing list archives and there isn't a Talk page corresponding with [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies)]].
Of course; since it's quite obviously subjective I assumed people would assume that I was stating it as such :-) I wasn't trying to argue for wholesale replacement of "movie" by "film", just the same admirable agnosticism that is applied across the rest of the wikipedia.
I strongly object to this. Conventions should be maintained consistently across Wikipedia. If you want to change the naming convention, propose a vote. But there's nothing admirable about ignoring conventions. It's simply unprofessional.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
If you want to change the naming convention, propose a vote.
Since the naming conventions were not brought about by a vote, but by discussion and consensus, their change now does not require a vote, but discussion and consensus.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Jason Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 06:10:39AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jason Williams wrote:
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
That "movie" is ugly is a pretty ad hoc aesthetic judgment, don't you think?
Of course; since it's quite obviously subjective I assumed people would assume that I was stating it as such :-) I wasn't trying to argue for wholesale replacement of "movie" by "film", just the same admirable agnosticism that is applied across the rest of the wikipedia.
At any rate, perhaps there was a discussion somewhere about this?
I expect so, but I couldn't find it by googling the mailing list archives and there isn't a Talk page corresponding with [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies)]].
I was an active participant in that discussion in March 2002. Its apparently factored remnants are at [[Talk:Film]], but it seems to me that it also went on across several talk pages. I've never considered this debate as an American vs. British English sort of issue. As a supporter of "movie", then as now, I obviously don't consider "movie" to be ugly. I am of course pleased that (movie) has become our standard disambiguating term, but even here I recognize that most Wikipedia rules are subject to change. As things stand "movie" has developed considerable inertia, and making the change over such a large array of articles could be very confusing. Making the disambiguating term optional doesn't seem very attractive.
Eclecticology
Jason Williams wrote:
Of course; since it's quite obviously subjective I assumed people would assume that I was stating it as such :-) I wasn't trying to argue for wholesale replacement of "movie" by "film", just the same admirable agnosticism that is applied across the rest of the wikipedia.
I generally agree with you that Wikipedia should be agnostic about matters of style like whether things are "movies" or "films". (That's why I'm horrified at the growth of the Manual of Style.) But we have to draw the line when it comes to article *names*, so that linking will go smoothly. Naming conventions often must make arbitrary stylistic choices, but that's OK, since it's only for article names, not for every item of text.
BTW, this issue is moot as far as [[Young and Innocent]] is concerned, since in fact it is *not* the title of a Hemingway novel after all; thus, no disambiguation (nor deletion) is needed in this particular case.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
I generally agree with you that Wikipedia should be agnostic about matters of style like whether things are "movies" or "films". (That's why I'm horrified at the growth of the Manual of Style.) But we have to draw the line when it comes to article *names*, so that linking will go smoothly. Naming conventions often must make arbitrary stylistic choices, but that's OK, since it's only for article names, not for every item of text.
I think that's a very important insight. We want to be careful about imposing a lot of standards, and the more standards we have, the less we should expect newcomers to follow them. Nupedia died (or nearly so, it still breathes on occassion!) under the weight of extreme a priorism that made the whole process impossible for newcomers to get invested in.
But the thing about standards for article titles is that they make things easier for newcomers and oldtimers alike.
--Jimbo
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 06:10, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jason Williams wrote:
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
That "movie" is ugly is a pretty ad hoc aesthetic judgment, don't you think?
At any rate, perhaps there was a discussion somewhere about this?
Should be somewhere in the mailing list archives. Basically, there were many variants in use:
Bla bla (movie) Bla bla (1967 movie) Bla bla (film) Bla bla (1967 film) Bla bla (motion picture) Bla bla (Soderbergh film) Bla bla (Soderbergh movie) Bla bla (2002 Soderbergh movie) and whatnot.
"Bla bla (movie)" seemed to have the largest 'installed base', as it were, so when it was decided to establish some consistency, "(movie)" won out over the equally-simple but thus far less used (though more aesthetic, at least for us film folks) "(film)".
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Films are what auteurs make.
Zoe
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:50:58PM +0100, Jason Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:44:44PM +0200, K
Forstner wrote:
The reason is that Hitchcock's movie of the same
name (which I'm going to
rename "movie" instead of "film")
Erm. Why?
Okay, so there's a naming convention on this at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(movies)
Why is it so? Why is the principle that American and British English have equal status abandoned here? Why is the ugly "movie" explicitly preferred over the perfectly good "film"?
-- jason@jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Consistancy.
Zoe
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 02:44:44PM +0200, K Forstner wrote:
The reason is that Hitchcock's movie of the same
name (which I'm going to
rename "movie" instead of "film")
Erm. Why?
--
jason@jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com