[Wikipedia-l] Movie naming convention: proposed tweak for simplicity

[Fred Bauder]

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