It seems most Americans missed the point I was making and don't grasp the Irish and European use of sarcasm. So let me spell it out.
1. Most non-Americans do not use the word 'movie' and see it as a word largely unique to America and its exclusive use on wikipedia classic americocentrism.
2. Most English speakers on the use 'film'. Most Americans don't.
3. Most Americans use 'movie', not film.
The obvious solution is to apply the same approach as we do with British English and American English. Accept the form used by whoever writes the article. In some areas on wiki, there are definite rights and wrongs, over names, titles, references. But here there is no right and wrong, merely different terms for the same thing. Wiki may well have decided to use 'movie' previously, but that was when wiki was overwhelmingly American in terms of contributors. The longer it goes on, the more non-Americans will join, and it hardly helps convince people that wiki isn't americocentric if they are told they must use the American-English word in preference to their own. It is already irritating to non-Americans when they create entries to films in foreign languages that may not have had an American release, only to find a French language or German language films christened 'movie'. Using 'movie' to describe a European film is as annoying to Europeans as calling someone from Belgium French is to a Belgian, or calling someone from Ireland 'British' is to the Irish. Or indeed presuming a Canadian is from the United States is to a Canadian. It is an causing an offence that is unnecessary and can easily avoided.
As to the reference to 'movie' bring used to describe Hollywood blockbusters, that is done tongue in cheek by many Europeans to contrast big budget Hollywood blockbusters to arthouse films or film noir. And I was mentioning that in a tongue in cheek manner. It used to be said in Europe that 'Americans don't ''do'' irony'. Seeing the failure to grasp the fact that what I was saying was sarsasm, I guess that statement seems true after all. No offence was intended. Obviously we should put different concept of 'sense of humour' and 'irony' on a list of American and European differences on a wiki list! Wikilove. JT.
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
james duffy wrote:
The obvious solution is to apply the same approach as we do with British English and American English. Accept the form used by whoever writes the article.
The problem is that disambiguation in article titles pushes us strongly in the direction of a convention.
In the text of articles, to be sure, there's no reason to prefer one over the other, and in fact, a respect for the nuances of language suggests that no a priori rule is likely to capture the richness of what someone is trying to express.
But for article titles, consistency is more important.
As to the reference to 'movie' bring used to describe Hollywood blockbusters, that is done tongue in cheek by many Europeans to contrast big budget Hollywood blockbusters to arthouse films or film noir.
This usage is common in the U.S. as well. The word 'film' is often used tongue in cheek to contrast solid entertainment with pretentious European dreck masquerading as art. So... you know... I guess international word choice doesn't diverge as much as you might think. :-)
I tend to agree with the choice of 'film', but not for the reasons that you outline. I think it's really silly to think that non-Americans are offended by the use of the word, or, if they are, they need to relax. A lot. And not pretend that Americans are humorless! :-)
But 'film' is more formal, and formality is good in an encyclopedia, so I lean in that direction anyway.
--Jimbo