![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unless Robert Rodriguez lives to be 147 years old, this film will necessarily be released posthumously. Should we add a category reflecting this? IJVin ( talk) 01:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain this is just an advertising campaign for Louis XIII, rather than a legitimate film. - User:1morey December 22, 2016 11:19 AM (EST)
Off-topic chat
|
---|
This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic (such as whether or not in your opinion the film exists). - SummerPhD v2.0 14:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
100 Years (film) → 100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See – It's a better title, because it is a little more vague about what the entity is -- which in this case is what we want, since what the entity is is somewhat uncertain.
Disambiguation is needed here, since 100 Years (song) exists. But by disambiguating with "(film)" we are, by clear implication, presenting this entity as being in essence similar to other "(film)" entities, such as Star Wars (film) and The Dark Knight (film).
But its not.
Whatever you think of this entity, and even if you do believe a film exists (and as the Washington Post says, "maybe it does"), it's quite an unusual phenomena. The entity being described here is quite difference in its essence from what is described by other film articles -- after all no living person has seen it or ever will (except the people who made it and their associates).
"100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See" is just the long form of the title (we use it to open the lede), and avoids the somewhat debatable proposition that what the reader is about to read is the same as any other article about a film. Maybe it is, but its debatable, so let's just avoid the issue, since we have a perfectly acceptable alternate disambiguation term. Herostratus ( talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW there's more discussion over what the entity is over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Years (film). Herostratus ( talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As to what the actual name of the entity is, let's think about this.
Very many book title are of this nature: "X: Y" with a secondary clause following a colon. Is this secondary clause part of the title? Well, yes and no. It's generally printed on the cover and the title page. It's probably correct to think of it as being part of the "long name" or "formal name" of the work, I guess. On the other hand, the secondary clause following the title is often dropped (not always but often), so the "common name" is usually the "short name", just the part before the colon. They are both "correct". (FWIW titles can't be copyrighted I believe, so that's no "legal name" argument either way I guess, even if that mattered.) (Most movies don't have this "X: Y" title format, but many do. Luckily for us, this one does -- the long title is used on screen in the trailer, and so forth.)
Back to books. Generally we use the just short name for the title (often giving the long name right away in the lede -- The Death of Expertise which opens with "The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters is..." being a very common format with our book articles I think). We do this because 1) it's shorter, 2) it's the common name (usually), and 3) it's sufficient to identify the book or film
However, when disambiguation is required, what then?
For instance, Devil's Knot requires disambiguation, so the title of the book article uses the long form: Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three The title could have been Devil's Knot (book) instead. Should it be? I don't know. The film article is just Devil's Knot (film). But the film doesn't have a long-form title (I don't think). We can't make one up, so we use parenthetical disambiguation.
Looking through Category:American non-fiction books, most titles are not disambiguated. Of those that are, most use the subsidiary clause ( Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War etc.), but some do use parenthetical disabiguation ( Body Count (book) even though the long form Body Count: The Terrifying True Story of the Spokane Serial Killer is available, etc.). So there's no "one Wikipedia way" here.
For films, the situation is reversed. Looking at Category:American documentary films (I chose that rather than just Category:American films because my guess is documentaries are more likely to have a long-form title, making disambiguation on that possible). Of those that are disambiguated, some use long-form disamguation ( Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War etc.) but more use parenthetical disambigation ( American Dream (film) etc.). It's not a huge difference: on the first page of that category, I count 36 articles using parenthetical disambiguation and 27 using long-title disambiguation, so 57% - 43%. So no "one Wikipedia way" for film titles either, I guess. (And at least some of these films probably don't have long-form titles, so of films where either type of disambiguation is possible it is surely closer to 50-50.)
So that's precedent. What about sources?
Well, sources don't need to disambiguate. They don't have to worry about the reader getting it confused with 100 Years (song). So they are free to just use the short form, and usually most will. That's an important reason why we would probably use just "100 Years" if disambiguation wasn't required. When it is, we go to our own rules for that -- which is why we don't go "Well, no source names it as '100 Years (film)' so we certainly can't use that for the title".
So that's how sources and disambiguation fit together. What about our written-down rules?
Wikipedia:Article titles gives us the Five Virtues of article titles, Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency (with other article titles). Wikipedia:Disambiguation is subsidiary to that, being only a guideline. At WP:NCDAB it says
So that page seems to encourage us to use the long form rather than parenthesis. That matters some, but WP:AT is the master rule. In its section about disambiguation ( WP:ATDAB) it mentions the three options above plus two more, but doesn't valorize any one method. So getting back to first principles, the Five Virtues:
So OK. Of the Five Virtues, one for "100 Years (film)" and the other four kind of a wash, depending on how you squint. OTOH hand, actual practice is somewhere near 50-50, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation kind of nudges us to use the long-title version. So, you know: either way is defensible. It's not a big deal, either is fine.
BUT WAIT.
That's if there's no question that the entity is, in it's core essence, a film more than anything else (such as a publicity campaign or whatever). But there's plenty of question. Since there's question, it's entirely possible (if the answer is "it is not, or anyway not mainly, or at least not entirely") that "Precision" is blown out of the water. We could call it " 100 Years (automobile)" and that would be Concise, and Recognizable... but wrong and misleading.
So let's not take that chance.
I mean, if Body Count (book) was 12 pages long, and some people were saying "it's not a book its a pamphlet", and some people were saying "sure it's a book", and we were going back and forth between Body Count (book) and Body Count (pamphlet)... wouldn't it make sense to title it "Body Count: The Terrifying True Story of the Spokane Serial Killer" since that is 1) just as acceptable (according to my analysis above) and 2) avoids the contentious question so that it can be laid out in a detail in the article ("Body Count: The Terrifying True Story of the Spokane Serial Killer is a book[ref] (some sources say a pamphlet)[ref] which...").
Same deal here. Sorry to be so lengthy, but I'm a little gobsmacked by editors who can't see this. Herostratus ( talk) 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look at the picture of the tickets here: http://runwayday.com/en/1417706097 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20171116082552im_/http://runwayday.com/sites/default/files/files/images/fisti_ru_20709.jpg) On the tickets it says there will only be one screening of the film, at the Cognac cellars, implying there will be no other distribution of the film. So quite literally for anyone not invited to the screening, this will be the film you will never see! John a s ( talk) 08:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The movie should be worked on all the way until 2115 so it can surely receive 100.0% on Rotten Tomatoes. 83.9.217.47 ( talk) 22:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Indians only 103.215.249.230 ( talk) 15:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Isn't treating it like a certainty that this will release in 92 years from now basically going full crystal ball? Coverage plays along with the certainty because that gets clicks, but as an encyclopedia we should stick to the facts: there's a film that's intended to be released at a given date that's in a safe. Too many things can happen in such a long period of time to guarantee that release will happen. 2803:4600:1116:807:E104:32EF:D0D6:3052 ( talk) 23:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)