As it is, our movie naming convention (which has been around since before January) reads:
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when only one movie had that name and (YEAR movie) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: Titanic (1997 movie))."
One user has for some time now been creating many movie titles in the form [[{movie name} (YEAR)]] (example [[Scareface (1932)]]. However I moved that page to the convention compliant [[Scareface (1932 movie)]]. After the move I compared the two and quickly realized that the word "movie" is not at all needed for disambiguation because "Scareface" is already disambiguated by year (there wasn't anything else released that year named "Scareface" that I know of). What's more is the fact that Scareface (1932) actually has a chance of being linked simply as [[Scareface (1932)]] instead of [[Scareface (1932)|Scareface]] (not that it matters too much with Lee's neat pipe trick).
So this is my proposed new wording of the convention (and I will assume acceptance of this as is if there are no objections):
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when only one movie had that name and (YEAR) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: [[Titanic (1997)]])."
We could add in the detailed movie convention page that if and when there /is/ more than one thing with the same name that is released in the same year, then the format of [[{name of movie} (YEAR movie)]] can be used.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
We could add in the detailed movie convention page that if and when there /is/ more than one thing with the same name that is released in the same year, then the format of [[{name of movie} (YEAR movie)]] can be used.
I think that that is too specific to be interesting. At the moment, IIRC, movies are the only things that use (YEAR), and even if there were others, the number of times when there would be (say) a book and a movie with the same title from the same year would be too rare to have a separate rule for. Apart from that, I think that the proposed change would be a good one.
Andre
At 10:53 AM 8/26/02 -0700, you wrote:
As it is, our movie naming convention (which has been around since before January) reads:
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when
only
one movie had that name and (YEAR movie) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: Titanic (1997 movie))."
One user has for some time now been creating many movie titles in the form [[{movie name} (YEAR)]] (example [[Scareface (1932)]]. However I moved that page to the convention compliant [[Scareface (1932 movie)]]. After the
move I
compared the two and quickly realized that the word "movie" is not at all needed for disambiguation because "Scareface" is already disambiguated by year (there wasn't anything else released that year named "Scareface" that I know of). What's more is the fact that Scareface (1932) actually has a
chance
of being linked simply as [[Scareface (1932)]] instead of [[Scareface (1932)|Scareface]] (not that it matters too much with Lee's neat pipe
trick).
So this is my proposed new wording of the convention (and I will assume acceptance of this as is if there are no objections):
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when
only
one movie had that name and (YEAR) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: [[Titanic (1997)]])."
We could add in the detailed movie convention page that if and when there /is/ more than one thing with the same name that is released in the same year, then the format of [[{name of movie} (YEAR movie)]] can be used.
Seems ok, although usually a new edition of the book is released at the same time as the movie. Also sometimes you have to dig a bit to find the year of release while you already know it's a movie. I would allow both coventions. And also articles which under one title address both a book and a movie based on it. Sometimes the book and the movie differ widely in significance.
Fred
Daniel Mayer wrote:
As it is, our movie naming convention (which has been around since before January) reads:
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when only one movie had that name and (YEAR movie) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: Titanic (1997 movie))."
One user has for some time now been creating many movie titles in the form [[{movie name} (YEAR)]] (example [[Scareface (1932)]]. However I moved that page to the convention compliant [[Scareface (1932 movie)]]. After the move I compared the two and quickly realized that the word "movie" is not at all needed for disambiguation because "Scareface" is already disambiguated by year (there wasn't anything else released that year named "Scareface" that I know of). What's more is the fact that Scareface (1932) actually has a chance of being linked simply as [[Scareface (1932)]] instead of [[Scareface (1932)|Scareface]] (not that it matters too much with Lee's neat pipe trick).
So this is my proposed new wording of the convention (and I will assume acceptance of this as is if there are no objections):
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when only one movie had that name and (YEAR) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: [[Titanic (1997)]])."
We could add in the detailed movie convention page that if and when there /is/ more than one thing with the same name that is released in the same year, then the format of [[{name of movie} (YEAR movie)]] can be used.
In the first place the title was "Scarface" and not "Scareface".
The policy should remain that first level of disambiguation answers the question "what?" rather than "when?". The 1932 movie "Scarface" was based on the 1930 novel of the same name by Armitage Trail. It is not safe to assume that just because you have [[Scarface (1930)]] and [[Scarface (1932)]] the earlier one must be the book. During the silent movie period (When TV's and home videos were in short supply) it was quite common for a book to be produced after the movie, when it could be illustrated with a selection of still shots from the movie. A person who knows about movies does not always know about books. I didn't find any books entitled Scarface published in 1932, but there is nothing on the net for books that is as comprehensive as IMDb is for movies.
Eclecticology
Maveric149 wrote:
"Oftentimes movies share the same name as other movies, books or terms. When disambiguating a movie from something else use (movie) in the title when only one movie had that name and (YEAR) in the title when there are more than one movies by that name (example: [[Titanic (1997)]])."
And if there's also a miniseries called "Titanic" in 1997, then we can use [[Titanic (1997 movie)]] again? (There was such a miniseries, IIRC, although I'm not certain of its year; it was unrelated to the movie, although capitalising on the movie's publicity. OTOH, we naturally wouldn't count a novelisation of the movie, which can be discussed on the movie's own page.)
I'm looking at how things could be complicated again; but generally speaking, I think that you have the right idea.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org