Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"movie" vs. "film" in category names[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  •  (change conflict)  Closing remarks: Apologies for the delay between the addition of the archiving templates and my subsequent closing remarks (basically this chunk of text you are reading now), but some discussions deserve more than a simple closing sentence, especially when they are this long (in both duration and text length). A more detailed closing statement also potentially makes the lives of future editors easier when digging into community archives.
  • Firstly I would like to note that the film vs movie debate is not an ENGVAR issue. ENGVAR, among other things, states that it is not acceptable to edit-war between styles which are both accepted styles. Quoting from Arbcom in 2006: Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style.
  • The community has historically supported the use of "movie" instead of "film" in article titles. While the exact reasoning behind the choice of word has changed somewhat over time (participants in RfD Log 2 preferred "movie" largely due to the fact that fewer articles were in the "film" category, though there was also mention that "movie" is simpler), it doesn't change the fact that the consensus established back then was to use "movie". Therefore it follows that article titles should not use "film", since only one of these words can be in the article title at any point of time. This is further supported by the mass rename in 2008 (Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_39#American_vs._United_States), which was subsequently confirmed in a later thread (Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_39#Movie/film_changes). Ironically, Truth'soutthere foresaw that this issue had the potential to cause confusion in future and suggested that a new guideline be created to specifically record the word preference. Alas, that did not happen, and formalization of the change, as far as I can tell, was limited to this diff in MOS.
  • There has been no consensus in this thread to switch to the use of "film".
  • While it is technically correct to say that the community never expressly banned the use of "film" in articles, en:MOS:ARTCON states that within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently, so it is a de facto ban on the use of the word. The point here is that the use of English varieties in articles should be internally consistent. Obvious exceptions apply such as when referring to proper nouns (e.g. various film festivals, academic journals).
  • Regarding short film: this appears to be something which the community back then did not address (and I suspect, did not anticipate at all). In the spirit of maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary (en:MOS:RETAIN) "short film" should not be renamed en masse to "short movie" (or vice versa) until a subsequent discussion decides on the exact usage of the term. That is not to say that "short film" is an exception to MOS. In this case the community did not decide on anything and an editor just so happened to create short film in 2015. It is worth considering whether "short film" is to be seen as a standalone noun or an adjective + noun combination.
  • Guidelines, technically speaking, have less prescriptive power compared to policy, but that is not to say that guidelines are optional. It is bad form to go against guidelines without good reason, since guidelines are the product of community consensus.
  • Special mention goes to Thrasymedes for their tireless work in digging through the community archives.

--Chenzw  Talk  15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Addendum: since it was pointed out on my talk page (Special:PermaLink/6806518#"movie"_vs._"film"_in_category_names_closing) I should clarify that the word movie is still preferred to film in article text because "film" can have different meanings depending on the context, and thus not simple. This was alluded to in RfD Log 2, ST archive 18, and subsequently confirmed in archive 35. In fact at the time of the archive 18 discussion it appeared that editors were already copyediting "film" to "movie", though the article titles were not fully updated to reflect this, presumably due to the additional work involved in page moves. It would be more accurate to say The community has historically supported the use of "movie" instead of "film" in articles instead. Chenzw  Talk  16:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Are the words "movie" and "film" identical and interchangeable, or is "movie" considered simpler English? I just performed a rename move on Category:2011 anime movies because the English WP calls it en:Category:2011 anime films and I consider it preferable for the two to have an identical name. Then I saw all the subcategories here in Category:Anime movies by year, all "movies." Is there a guideline here, or guidance? Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no consenus on simple. Some editors are strongly of the opionion that the word film should not be used in any item on moving pictures and that we should consistently use movie. They believe that readers may be confused as the word film has other meanings than a moving picture show. Other editors have equally strong opinions that film is a universally recognised word for a moving image story, many of the awards and instituions use the word film and not movie and that the context of the article is clearly about moving pictures and not about a thin layer of coating. I think that either can be used, with film being the natural word to use for British films and movie more suited to American movies. To avoid confusion the item should include an explanation in the lead that "film is another word for movie" or "movie is another word for film". As far as categories are concerned the consistent use of movie to group films and movies seems a good idea. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It is a long-standing practice here to use movie, except in things like direct quotes and proper names of things (such as Sundance Film Festival). It is not a case of British vs. American English: here in the US we use both terms. We certainly wouldn't do our ESL readers any good if we mixed the terms. The fact that new editors come here from enwiki and get tripped up by the different language used here and disagree with it does not mean there is no consensus. And keep in mind that there is no requirement that category names here match those used by enwiki. If it helps, think of Simple English as a separate language, just like Spanish is separate from English. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
As many of our readers are learning English as a second language ESL we should take every opportunity to explain potentially confusing words such as film and movie which they will come across in the real world. Deprecating a commonly used word does a diservice to those learners. We are not inventing a new language, just providing access to information to those new to English. ESL students need additional explanation not a dumbed down encyclopedia. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite the comment of Brian above long standing consensus is to use movie instead of film. And yes we treat Simple English as a distinct variation of the English language. The entire purpose of Simple English wikipedia is essentially to be a "dumbed" down version of English wikipedia in terms of the language used. We try our best to only use words from the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. However that is certainly not always practical so we often make choices on what word is the best word to use when there are multiple words for the same thing. The result is usually the words with the least ambiguity. And we would never use something like "film is another word for movie" in an article except the main movie article as that would be adding complexity and redundancy if we used it in every article where we used one or the other. Remember this wiki is about using a Simple concise subset of the English language, we aren't specifically here to teach ESL, although that is the natural outcome of using a concise shortened wordlist. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Although some editors claim 'consensus' I have not seen anything on simple other than the two views being put forward (see archived discussions) with no final resolution. Neither 'movie' nor 'film' exist in Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist and so we need to explain the use of these words. 'film' is the older word used by most of the world and in all awarding bodies such as BAFTA and Academy awards citations. 'movie' is deeemed simpler. I would be interested in any ESL teachers from the UK providing another viewpoint. As a UK teacher, I have asked friends and the consensus is that the more common word is 'film' and that it is unlikely to cause confusion when refering to motion pictures. My view is that either can be used, the preference being on context. Where there is possible confusion, explain it. Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I am also of this opinion. A previous discussion was archived before most had even read my opinion, which was:

"Film" is the standard word in British English for what American English calls a movie. There's no doubt about that, and it is not ambiguous. Context in language determines meaning: many words do have more than one possible meaning. The word 'movie' sticks out like a sore thumb in a page which is otherwise in British English. We should "go with En wiki" as we do in many other debates".

Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

But context is also difficult for English learners to get. That is why we try to use words that have only one meaning, or at least as few meanings as possible.
And if we always "go with enwiki" there's no reason for this work to exist. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly it, context is not simple, which is why we try to remove the need for it when possible. This is a case where we can remove the need for it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In English 'film' has two other meanings, which are unrelated to motion picture/movie. We shouldn't complicate our lives and use 'movie' wherever possible (with the possible exception of 'film festival', as 'movie festival' looks funny). It looks like we are flogging a dead horse; most of the active regular editors agree...--Eptalon (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that 'film' having other meanings makes it more difficult for students to understand. This is because the two other meanings ('thin layer' and 'photography medium'?) are more rarely used ('photography medium' especially nowadays) and not commonly learnt until the student is more advanced. As another example, consider the word 'habit'. The 'action performed regularly' meaning is much more common than the other meanings, and children and English beginners only learn this meaning. Even if we use the word 'movie' for the noun, we still have to use the verb 'film' (e.g., in the article Babe (movie), where we say "Babe was filmed at…"). One could argue that using 'film' is simpler since we can use this for both the noun and verb, so the learner does not have to learn two unrelated words. As well as 'film festival', we also have the issue that a short film seems to be called this in all Anglophone countries. If we look at the American English corpus, 'short film' is still used much more than 'short movie' (see Ngram Viewer). I guess this is why the 'short film' article is called this despite the 'movie' policy on this wiki. Perhaps 'movie' is used more for feature films than for shorter films? Even if we look at 'film' and 'movie' in American English, 'film' (be it verb or noun) is still used over twice as many times as 'movie'. In that sense, English learners will be confronted with 'film' more (either in verb or noun form), so if we were to opt for the most common word, it would be 'film'. A popular English learning wordlist, the Oxford 3000, has both 'film' and 'movie'. I think it would be good to gather some opinions from children and beginner ESL students on this issue on what they think would be best. Although I agree Simple English is effectively a variety of English, we define its rules on this wiki so we can change things if we want to. Having said this, I shall certainly stick with the movie policy (unless it changes one day) since this is what most people agree with. --Thrasymedes (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You present a compelling argument that I mostly agree with. I would point out that there is no policy to use movie on this wiki, just a convention amongst long term editors. I still promote the use of 'film' or 'movie' as appropriate in the article and promote in article explanation or linking to the movie page from the word film. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an important point we need to clarify. There is nothing in the manual of style about it, but I was under the impression that it is a de facto policy which we cannot deviate from, even though there is no policy page. For example, I started The King's Speech with 'film' and it was changed to use 'movie'. Were I to have changed the article back to have something like "film (movie)", I think this would have been reverted again. Would administrators please clarify the situation? Perhaps we are in need of a policy or guideline? --Thrasymedes (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It was the result of many discussions in the past. As such there is consensus for doing that. Not all consensus discussions end up in an actual policy page or guideline page, in this particular case I believe there has been discussion on how exactly a page to explain preferred words would be laid out and we never came to a conclusion on how to structure such a page. That doesn't however mean there is no consensus that movie should be used. There very much is and has been since the early 2000s. You are correct in your statement that if you were to use film you would almost definitely see that it gets changed to movie. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Having looked through the past and recent debates (thank you to the user that found the archived discussion for me), I have not found any consensus position for the consistent use of either word. Re-reading the title of this discussion I would vote for consistency in category names and that it should be 'movie' (as now). For artcicles I would vote for allowing either word, so long as 'movie' had an explanation that it means 'film' (as it does on its article page). -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Well at this point we are just going around in circles. The discussion they linked to in the more recent discussion is only one of many that have been had. They all end with essentially the same consensus to use movie instead of film or with a lack of consensus to change to a new consensus (ie the recent discussions) which means status quo remains per the usual methods for consensus on a wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could just flip a coin. More seriously, I don't see how it matters much. We've already expended a lot of community time on this discussion, and it's unlikely to greatly affect any reader. Vermont (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
If changes are being reverted consistently with no option for disagreement, it is a rule, whether it is written or not. I know not all consensus discussions end up with a guideline, but I think here we are in need of one to stop going round in circles and so editors know what to do. A sentence or two in the manual of style might do the trick, possibly as a bullet point in the "Miscellaneous notes" sections. I think what Auntof6 has written already would be fine: "We use the word "movie" instead of "film" when talking about motion pictures. "Film" can be used for the actual medium that a movie is (or at least used to be) recorded onto. It can also be used for the act of recording the movie." Among the people in this discussion, there seems to be a 3:3 split on the proposition, so perhaps we could have a vote on whether to include Auntof6's sentences into the manual of style? Then we can determine what the rest of the community thinks and put this issue to bed, which I agree is tiresome because it has been discussed repeatedly. Or shall we just put those sentences in there without a vote if a vote is not appropriate? --Thrasymedes (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
To be honest it is already there for article titles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Movies. Could just expand on what it says there, though it is in the titles section so probably not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I know it's not a vote for consensus but if it helps I am with remaining with movie. I think it's the objective of SEWP to be simple, and I prefer either movie or film, not both. Let's end this discussion which is clearly going nowhere. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso:  Done The article titles section uses the word 'movie', but it does not say anything about having to use 'movie' instead of 'film', hence the discussion here. Yes, I thought the same. Assuming there is a consensus for 'movie', I added a slightly edited version of Auntof6's sentences to the National varieties of English section. Feel free to improve it and move it to a better place. With this, I think we have answered Deborahjay's question. --Thrasymedes (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Thrasymedes: I do not see consenus for the overwriting of 'film' with 'movie' EXCEPT in the use of categories, where it makes perfect sense to be consistent. I would support a vote if people feel strongly that the word 'film' when refering to motion pictures should be banned. My vote is for both words to be allowed, consistent use of one choice within a page and links to alternative. Brian R Hunter (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Since there is disagreement between editors on whether there is a consensus to ban 'film' and not much dissection of arguments, a poll may assist here to focus discussion on the pros and cons of using only 'movie' and establish a consensus. I agree it does not matter much either way, but we need to be clear if 'film' is banned or not so we can answer Deborahjay's question and move forward with everyone knowing what to do. Thus, I offer the following proposal. --Thrasymedes (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: We should use only the word 'movie' instead of 'film' when talking about motion pictures. That is, the use of 'film' in this context should be forbidden.


  • Support for all the reasons that have already been mentioned ad naseum. I would like to point out that the assumption is actually incorrect that movie is only a north american thing. We have had editors from numerous european countries and Asian countries that mention their words for motion pictures more closely translate to movie than film. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • So I decided to look further into it since someone mentioned to me on IRC that Australia uses movie. Turns out they use it 83% of the time. What I found is someone actually did a study on this very topic. And results that I am sure will shock the two opposes below. In the United Kingdom movie is actually used 53% of the time in google searches and the year over year trend in news articles actually shows that usage is increasing in the UK. Here is an interactive map for how often either word is used in various countries. Looking at the map it becomes very clear the most common word in almost the entire world except a few outlying countries is movie. While some countries are split almost evenly like the UK. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. 'Movie' has a clear meaning and is generally used in most of the places. Youtube, Amazon, Netflix all use the term Movie so I think using it is better idea.--BRP ever 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • After much thought, I feel that the easier is the meaning of the word, the better it is. The more common is the word, the simpler it is is also true. I also feel the status quo if maintained will be more effective in this project. Hence, support. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. Oppose For reasons discussed above, which I summarize here:
    • 'Film' is well-understood by speakers of all national varities of English. In the 2009 American English corpus on Google Books Ngram Viewer, it appears (either as a noun or verb) over twice as many times as 'movie'. Using the overall more common, standard word is one of the underlying principles of Simple English.
    • We can use 'film' to describe works of all lengths, whereas 'movie' is generally limited to feature films and not used for short films. Also, festivals are almost always called 'film festivals' (see list of film festivals). If we want to stick with one word for simplicity, 'film' can be used more broadly.
    • We have to use the verb 'film' in articles, so it is simpler to use the related noun 'film' instead of the unrelated 'movie'.
    • 'Film' having the other meanings of 'thin layer' and 'photographic medium' does not make it harder for English learners to understand. The other meanings are rare and only learnt when students are more advanced. Hence, they will not get confused when reading articles about motion pictures. For this reason, I do not agree with the argument that, because 'movie' has only one meaning, it is simpler than 'film'.
    • Since 'movie' is only standard in North America and is not the standard word in Australia or the UK, for example, this proposal forces articles written in Australian and British English to use 'movie', breaking the principle from the manual of style where "if there is a strong relationship to a specific region or dialect, use that dialect". On the other hand, 'film' is understood in all Anglophone countries since it is the older and more established word, so could be used in American articles too.
    • 'Film' is the standard word in academia. For example, a US academic journal is called Film Criticism. The academic discipline film studies is called so in all Anglophone countries. --Thrasymedes (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • In response to DJSasso's comment, I said "'movie' is only standard in North America". This only refers to English since this is the language under consideration. I did not say or assume anything about other languages. If anyone wants to see translations of 'movie' in other languages, please take a look at the translations section on Wiktionary. As you can see on that page, numerous European and other languages have translations closer to 'film' too. Our readers have lots of different native languages. We are only comparing the meanings and usage of English words here. --Thrasymedes (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Except we are not just considering English. We have to take into account ease of which those coming from other languages will understand the word. As such it is a very important marker. That being said, as I have since added above, movie is actually the most common in English in most of the world, even the UK (though slightly). -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Since many other people will find 'film' closer to their native language's word, this depends on what native language the person has. To do this properly, we would have to quantify how many readers we have from different locations and work out, for each language, whether 'film' or 'movie' is the closer word. But this still does not address the meanings and usage of the two English words, which are different. In terms of meaning, 'film' is broader and, in terms of usage, the word 'movie' is more common in the UK and the US in some situations, like the Web, but not others, like books. More on this below. --Thrasymedes (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • In response to DJSasso's second comment, Web searches and encyclopedias are different situations. I have already read articles like this, which describes the trends, so I am well aware of them. In the 2012 British English corpus, 'film' was used over 6 times as much as 'movie' in the UK (Google Ngrams). If we compare this to the article and look at 2012, it does not match up. The situations are different. For example, Google searches are informal and 'movie' is a more informal word, Google is an American search engine so users might use the American word (GB American spelling example) and UK users often want to find American movies, which are very popular there and around the world. On the other hand, books are generally more formal so writers use the standard word, hence why Ngrams shows a different story. Academic works in English still use 'film' even in the United States, which is why enWP uses it even for US films. There is certainly an increase in the use of 'movie' in British and Australian English, especially Australian, but 'film' remains the standard for formal works in both countries. Since we are an encyclopedia, if we want to use only one word, we should go for 'film' because it is the standard word used in academia, has a broader meaning than 'movie' and is just as simple. --Thrasymedes (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose For reasons given above. Simple should aim to explain words not on the common list. Neither movie nor film is on that list, so both words need explanation where used. A link to the movie page should be sufficient. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weird that someone start a proposal just to oppose the proposal. I rather Thrasymedes start a proposal which him/her supports. This seems pointless to me. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Camouflaged Mirage: I think @Thrasymedes: wants to bring this long running discussion to a conclusion and proposed formal agreement for what he believes some users have claimed is the consensus. If passed then when could remove all mention of film in relation to motion pictures (which some editors have claimed to want); if failed then we could allow both words to be used (as other editors have wanted, perhaps with clarification on when to use which word) -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Seems quite complicated, why not be more straightforward and put what you want as a proposal? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Camouflaged Mirage: Some editors already believe that there is a consensus for the proposal and are acting in line with it already, so I proposed it on the back of the discussion above to gather points of view from the community and to see if there is a consensus for it. I encourage editors to consider the proposal and the discussion above, and give their view. If there is a consensus for this, we can put it into the manual of style so everyone knows. If not, we can consider other proposals. I agree that proposing something I disagree with is a little unusual, but I did not think it was worth proposing something else if there was a consensus for this. We can give some time for people to think things through and give their views on this proposal, and take things from there. --Thrasymedes (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
        • The issue with doing it as you have is that a consensus can already exist, and the lack of consensus in a new discussion to go one way or the other in a new discussion just means the old consensus still holds. In other words you actually need consensus to change from the existing consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
          • No consensus to delete something normally results in it being kept. Surely a lack of consensus to ban something means that it is not banned? It seems over the top to require a proposal to allow something if people have already not established a consensus to ban it. But if that's the case, fair enough. Either way, we'll see what happens with this and go from there. --Thrasymedes (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Speaking of RFD, this seems to be a DRV rather than RFD. The previous discussion have a consensus to use Movies rather than Films. The previous discussion can be seen as a RFD. For DRV, no consensus to do anything defaults the article to be deleted (if RFD result is delete) or article to be kept (if RFD results is to keep). So I will say it need to have a consensus to use both or use films to overturn the previous consensus. For me, I don't really know how to participate in this. We try to be simple here, so the lesser the words with similiar meaning and can be replaceable, the better. I think my take is, use either films / movies, not both. Obviously if it's XXX Film Festival or Best Film Awards, such should still stay per films (i.e. for proper name or terms, use what is given). For titles, I hope there will be a standard (i.e. XXX (Movie) or XXX (Flim) but not both. Obvious exceptions still applies like if a movie is called The Best Film, surely we don't have to change to The Best Movie. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
              • You don't have to worry about proper names being changed. They are names so definitions don't really matter compared to using the actual name. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
              • @Camouflaged Mirage: That is a helpful analogy, thank you. If there was not a consensus from before for a given proposal, and the proposal to ban had no consensus, then I think it would not be banned. But if there is a previous consensus, this changes the situation. Is that how you see it? --Thrasymedes (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Closure[change source]

The proposal has been up for 11 days now, and no more comments have been made for a while. It seems to me that there is a consensus for the proposal. Do other editors agree? If so, we can add it back to the manual of style. --Thrasymedes (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree... there is no clear consensus. It seems few editors are interested at all and there is strong feeling on both sides. I have seen no good arguments from any language learning perspective to ban the use of the word film in relation to motion pictures. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel there is no consensus to change anything. That being the case, things should continue as per our existing practice. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. To clarify what our existing practice is, do we agree with this as a closing summary?
  • moviefeature film/motion picture, running time > 40 minutes (based on AMPAS definition), to be used in all articles about a particular feature film and to be used in all categories; using the verb 'film' and talking about 'film' as a photographic medium is allowed
  • film – artwork made of recorded moving images of any running time, word that covers both 'movie' and 'short film'; 'film' may needed rarely in academic contexts (e.g. film studies) but not to be used normally
  • short film – film with a running time of ≤ 40 minutes (based on AMPAS definition); 'short film' seems to be a technical term here so 'film' can be used in this context, hence why our article is titled that way
  • short movie – a movie that is short, e.g., 65 minutes, compared to a more normal 90 minutes --Thrasymedes (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
More or !ess. The existing practice is to use movie to refer to a motion picture of any length. That applies to article and category names as well as text in articles. It does not apply to quotations or to official names of things (for example Cannes Film Festival). --Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have now updated the manual of style to include the old consensus. Please feel free to improve what I added. To answer your question, Deborahjay, and for future reference, here is a more detailed summary of how we have to use the words on this wiki:

  • movie – artwork made of recorded moving images of any running time; word that covers works of all lengths, including short films and feature films; word to be used in the text of articles, in article titles in brackets and in category names; usually, we use 'movie' for feature films and 'short film' for films < 40 minutes in duration, but we can use 'movie' to describe them both
  • film – artwork made of recorded moving images of any running time; 'film' may needed rarely in academic contexts (e.g. film studies) but is banned from being used in general; 'film' can be used in quotations and official names, e.g., Cannes Film Festival; using the verb 'film' and talking about 'film' as a photographic medium is allowed
  • short film – film with a running time < 40 minutes (based on AMPAS definition); 'short film' is a technical term so 'film' can be used in the phrase 'short film'
  • short movie – a movie that is short, e.g., for a feature film, 65 minutes, compared to a more normal 90 minutes; for clarity, we usually use 'short film' for a film < 40 minutes in duration --Thrasymedes (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see this as consensus. You have banned the word film (with minor exceptions) when there is no consensus for this. Although some editors have made this claim it is based on a few vocal editors with almost equally small numbers objecting to that view. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess there is no consensus now, but (as discussed in the Comments section above) several editors have said that this is a case where the old consensus applies. That is, unless there is a new consensus to allow something, it remains banned via the old consensus, even if there is no longer a consensus for the old proposal. Camouflaged Mirage gave the analogy of page deletion, where there has to be a consensus to allow a page to be brought back rather than no consensus. I have not personally banned it and, as you know, disagree with the ban completely. Instead, it is the community's old consensus that has banned it. Some editors do not tolerate any deviation from the ban, so I have simply written down what others are already enforcing. The only option now, as far as I am aware, is for you to make another proposal which allows the use of 'film', as DJSasso said above. If this gets a consensus, things will change. Unless that happens, the ban is in force, written or unwritten. --Thrasymedes (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
My argument is that there was never a consensus to ban 'film'. When I asked editors who changed pages to show me where it had been previously agreed, the only eveidence was inconclusive. That is, some editors think that there is consensus to ban 'film' and others think there isn't. Edits using either word have remained on this wiki. With a lack of consensus to ban 'film' it should remain available for some use alongside 'movie' where that is more appropriate. Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. Auntof6 has just undone my change to the manual of style saying "wrong section, incorrect summary ("short film" not an exception)". At this point, I don't know what is allowed and what is not. Since the 'short film' article has been called that since 2015 with no complaints (?) and Auntof6 did not mention it above, I assumed (wrongly) that 'short film' was allowed. Please could someone add a correct summary to the right section of the manual of style? This has been a very long discussion. I'm just trying to establish what is and is not allowed within articles to make things clear for editors, and I'm sorry if I've done this poorly. I think the main reason that this topic is discussed over and over again is because it is not clear, and editors are having 'film' within articles changed to 'movie' without a guideline. Regarding the consensus issue, I've done some digging at Simple Talk and tried to list the previous discussions below (though I've likely missed some) along with an attempted summary:
  • 2006 – RFD Log 2 – TBCΦ and Netoholic prefer to use 'film' for categories; Blockinblox and zephyr2k prefer to use 'movie' for categories; no consensus (?), but the result is to use 'movie' for categories
  • 2007 – Archive 18 – a few comments with no consensus on banning 'film' in articles; Creol mentions "we shifted categories to use the word movie due to the ambiguity issue"
  • 2008 – Archive 35 – American Eagle suggests using 'film' in categories to match enWP; The Rambling Man agrees; Tygrrr, Creol and Cassandra prefer using 'movie'; no consensus on banning 'film' in articles
  • 2008 – Archive 39 – another 'film' versus 'movie' category discussion; Synergy and The Rambling Man seem to prefer 'film'; Cassandra, Creol, Razorflame seem to prefer 'movie'; the discussion also touches on articles and there seems to be a consensus to use 'movie' in article titles; accordingly, tholly starts to rename articles with 'movie'
  • 2010 – Archive 80 – another 'film' versus 'movie' category discussion; the Rambling Man mentions that there is a previous consensus to use 'movie' for categories; Synergy, Griffinofwales, Bluegoblin7 and Yottie seem to prefer 'film'; Kansan, The Rambling Man, Eptalon, Peterdownunder seem to prefer 'movie'; the discussion seems to end with a consensus for using 'movie', but it is not very clear whether this applies within articles too; 2010 was when I joined and I think, by then, all articles were using 'movie' in the text too
  • 2011 – Archive 93 – reminder to use 'movie' in article titles
  • 2011 – Archive 94 – reminder of previous consensus to use 'movie' for category names
  • 2019 – Archive 127 – discussion mentions a previous consensus to use 'movie' both in category names and within articles
Does that help us? Based on this, I would say Archive 39 might be where the consensus to use 'movie' within articles began, but it is not very clear. --Thrasymedes (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you have proved my point. There is no clear consensus for removing the word 'film' when describing a motion picture. My view/proposal:

  • Category names should always use 'movie'. I can see no reason to have a mixture of uses. 'film' would be equally fine but most (all) currently use movie.
  • Title names can use whichever the pages creator chooses as a best fit. There should be a redirect from a page with the alternate.
  • content can use either, but should link to the existing page movie to explain the words usage.

Let's stop randomly changing the simple word 'film' when there is no evidence that it confuses anyone learning the language. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support We would have a consistent word for category names (without the job of renaming them all). We would also give editors the freedom to use both words in articles and article titles, which will be less divisive and will conform with WP:ENGVAR. 'Film' is just as simple as 'movie'; learners learn them as synonyms initially and do not get confused. Neither word is part of the combined wordlist, so we generally link 'film' and 'movie' to the movie article anyway, which explains the concept for anyone who does not understand it. Banning 'film', which is preferred in academic books and journals, and which we have to use as a verb, is unhelpful and divisive. This proposal sounds like a sensible compromise and a good way for the wiki to move forward. --Thrasymedes (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There was consensus before this discussion. There was no consensus to change in this discussion. I think the topic is closed at this point. Beyond one very vocal user who wants to change what has clearly been consensus and practice for many years. We require consensus to change from the current editing practices. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

I am not sure where the 'discussion' for this is continuing. It seems that an admin has made an executive decision about prior and current consensus and got bored with the debate. Editors have asked for clarity... but the only arguments put forward for banning 'film' are that the few previous active users got used to it being 'movie'. It seems a poor argument, Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, the closure statement is still pending. It isn't executive decision, the closer is uninvolved. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: apologies -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah you might want to check your facts before you start throwing around personal attacks. It wasn't me who closed the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: apologies -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hermann Göring on the main page and demotion discussion[change source]

Hermann_Göring has come back around on the front page. It has been flagged for demotion for over three months, but many editors may not have noticed because the template was not added at first. The discussion is here. It would be good if a few more editors could have a look, and then the proposal can be closed. Thanks. --Gotanda (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's ugly with that template, can we temp take out that template or replace it with another page in the time being. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion with no consensus to demote. Chenzw  Talk  08:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Warning on article that I can't figure out how to get rid of[change source]

At the bottom of the Prishtina article, there's a warning about a reference group that is named but does not exist. I cannot figure out how to fix the problem which is resulting in this warning. Any help would be appreciated. Beaneater (contact me) (see my edits) 27 Shevat 5780 / 05:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beaneater00: Warning's gone now. Thanks for pointing it out. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

New articles by 2A02:C7F:148C:6800::/64[change source]

Over the past few weeks, an anonymous editor from this /64 range has been creating new articles about actors and TV series, particularly those with ties to ITV. I have to admit that I feel rather conflicted about the series of edits; new contributions (especially brand new articles!) are welcome, but I notice that most of the writing is subpar and suggests some form of automated translation (or just poor command of the English language?). In addition, some of the new articles contain errors in birthdates/years, such as:

I am not really sure what is going on here, and the intentions of the anonymous editor. Nevertheless, all of the articles do appear to need review, be it for verification of facts, copyediting, or wikification.

I have reviewed the anon's contributions since 20 January and note that all of these subjects do appear to be indeed notable, and that these subjects also have articles on EN. I would also like to point out that the /64 range is currently blocked on EN for "disruptive editing". Chenzw  Talk  14:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to look the other day into why it was blocked on And see if it matched what was happening here and block here if the case. But I haven't had the time to dig yet. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Seen some, I think it's sort of poor command of language. Factual errors are there. Hard to nuke also, can we just have a tag or whatsoever to monitor as I reckon to clean up will take time. Doesn't seems malicious though. I know it's ipv6 but is there any way to engage them? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked as it appears they were having the same issues as on en. With birth dates etc being incorrect enough times as to not appear to be accidents. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Statistics for last year...[change source]

Hello all, Let me sum up the pageviews for last year: Above 1 million hits each:

Above 500.000 hits each:

No matter what we discussed about (language complexity, sentence structure, etc.) the articls above are the "Winners". So if you are a regular contributor here, please have a look at the pageviews, which lists the 90-odd other articles as well.--Eptalon (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Page move request[change source]

Can any administrator please move Palestine to Palestine (region) and move Palestine (disambiguation) to Palestine to avoid confusion. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The disambiguation page isn't in the right format. I see this as logical move though.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed by myself.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait, but why is Palestine not the diambig now? I think it should be. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Why hasn't Palestine became a disambiguation like the en wiki? Palestine can mean more different things. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Review[change source]

Hi, can somebody review the changes I Made at the "Nigger" Wikipedia article? Apologies if there is a better place to request this, yet. want I want to make sure the wording is correct, especially on such a sensitive article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Pages featuring Category:U.S. Counties with long url[change source]

I've noticed that 7 pages of US cities feature this category, but I don't really understand what "long URL" means for a city. Does anyone else get this? If not the category should probably be removed. Reception123 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a tracking category that doesn't hurt anything. I just created the category, and it has an explanation on it. I don't understand the need for it, but it's assigned by a template and removing it from there would make template maintenance more difficult. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, I just wasn't sure about what URL meant but now I get it refers to the web URL of the county. Reception123 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I generally just fix the issue when that category fills up every so often and haven't bothered creating the category. It just means that there is stuff after the end of the domain name usually. Its often a very quick fix. For example I just fixed one that had when the /Pages/default.aspx was unnecessary to get to where you were going. So the fix was just to remove it. Because the category is just anything over 29 characters long it is possible (see Lawrence County, Arkansas) that some things will never be removed from the category, but its almost always the case that you can fix it so it can be removed. To Auntof6s confusion for the need for it, its a category that makes sure people aren't putting a subpage of a page in the web parameter instead of the main page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Using paywalled sources as references[change source]

Some publications such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal cannot be read by people who are not paid subscribers. This means that our readers cannot verify the contents of articles when these sources are used.

Can anyone offer any guidance? I apologize if this topic has been discussed before.

Thanks in advance , Ottawahitech (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I find that is excellent when it comes to getting past paywalls (and it works with the sources mentioned above + the Globe and Mail as a test) so perhaps leaving an archived link in the reference might be useful. Can't think of a proper solution at the moment but I'm thinking this could be an easy duct-tape solution for the time being. Hiàn (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
See en:WP:PAYWALL, which says:

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see en:WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also see en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, which includes the following:

Reliable sources must be able to be verified. This does not mean that any particular person at any given moment must be capable of verifying them.

--Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing a question posted by someone else[change source]

The following is an academic question that I would like to discuss here:

I guess I am more sensitive than others to the removal of someone else’s question on this talk page. I have had my own comments removed from wiki discussions before, not because they were offensive, but because they were considered trolling/ignorant by another participant.

It is my opinion that questions should not be removed from this talk page. Removing someone’s post can be viewed as a slight by that person. We should always assume good faith since no one understands the motives of someone who posts a question. After all the introduction says:

This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here

The worst that can happen is that no one responds to the question.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to participate.Ottawahitech (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Generally stuff is only removed from here if it's considered vandalim, spam, or such. Can you give any diff links? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Old discussions are removed (archived) after some time. Obvious Vandalism will also be removed. Everything else should stay.--Eptalon (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reagan National University[change source]

Is this organization worth an article? All i know about it is a longish article in USA Today: if it is agreed that an article should be written, I could give it a go. Kdammers (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read through the article, and it certainly sounds interesting. Vaguely reminds me of a en:Diploma mill. The problem I see though: While stories such as U.S. universities awarding scholarships/admission for "donations" can be put in a section of the respective universities, I currenlty don't see how we can convert this story into an encyclopedic article. And yes, given its reach, USA Today is certainly a reliable source.--Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I saw several good sources in google search, why not Kdammers you just start at User:Kdammers/Reagan National University and we have a look? I think it's promising. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)