Talk:Bande à part (film)

1323:, and in other discussions there has been a recognition of the need to avoid surprising or confusing the user. Like other British editors I have never heard the name Band of Outsiders in connection with this film. I would not expect it. Clearly, some users in other parts of the world might only know it by that name but they can be presumed to know that it is a French film and therefore not be surprised to find a French title. So keeping things as they are does seem to be the most helpful and least confusing option. Indeed I have just checked on the Lovefilm.com site (the main UK film hire and streaming site and owned by Amazon), and it does not recognise the Band of Outsiders title at all. -- 1475:

some anglophone Caribbean islands and Canada) is "outvoted" by UK, Ireland, Isle of Man, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa, etc., etc. – every dominantly or major-minoritarily English-speaking part of the world outside North America. Even if the total DVD sales in the US market are higher (which no one has proven anyway - I'm skeptical, as Americans per capita buy very few foreign-language films). And I say all that as an American, who does buy such films, with a strong preference for renaming foreign-language-titled articles to their English-named equivalents. This is simply a clear-cut exception.

2914:. Sometimes this point is very, very difficult to get people to understand and accept when you're talking about a subject they care about and when they have a favored orthography based on their pet sources. Editors can become very emotional and entrenched about the orthography in "their" sources, losing sight of what is most appropriate for the most general-purpose encyclopedia in the world. This will surely prove as true of some editors in film, opera, music and literature as it does in zoology, but the arguments are really the same, and the most important one – a matter of pure and plain Knowledge policy – is that 2004:

because, unlike the case here, some foreign films, particularly those from France, Italy and Spain, may be distributed in the British Commonwealth under their original titles, while audiences in U.S. may see them under their English-language titles. Thus, the English-language rule appears to indicate that if a film has an English-language title in use in a considerable portion of the English-speaking world (either the U.S.-Canada market or the British Commonwealth) then such English-language title should trump the also-used foreign-language title.

421: 191: 351: 327: 243: 222: 361: 253: 2293:, would be unrecognizable by their English-language translation, in this case, "Goodbye Children". The same is true for those selected cinematic classics from Italy, Spain, Japan, India and other linguistic venues whose titles were retained in their original form. However, "selected" is the operative word here. Virtually none of the titles borne by the films produced in their home country by such iconic auteurs as 1539:. If it were the other way around, there would be sheer chaos, with article titles frequently being ungrammatical and totally inconsistent with article prose. A clear example of how ENGVAR would easily apply to a naming case would be any of various car parts: Tire/tyre, trunk/boot, hood/bonnet. So any "this is a AT/NC issue, MOS/ENGVAR be damned" position is not a valid argument here or anywhere. 2967:(outdent) Just for the record: While I've opposed many of your rationales, and still don't believe this article should be moved, you do raise a lot of good general points, and I have to agree with your overall theme that there is a lot of inconsistency, double standard, and other issues to resolve. My personal feeling on this is that this is the result of lots of insular, WikiProject thinking ( 3149: 1039:), to ensure the highest possible strike rate for readers searching on the title. Since the French title is not available, then we should consider the next most common title. Since the English title is more commonly used in reliable sources than the Knowledge disambiguated title, then we should be consistent with the spirit of the naming guidelines and choose the alternative title. 2836:; they're simply writing for the expectations of their audiences, most of whom would think "Sheesh, this is a crappily written guide - they can't even remember to capitalize!" if they saw "Euro title case like this" for a film name; few average folks/blokes know about foreign capitalization conventions. The publishers just want to make a profit, and their typographical usage 2972:

that I am huge fan of, even stickler for, consistency even over my own personal "pet peeve" preferences (e.g. I detest the sentence casing of section headings in articles, but just do it and don't complain), so I feel perhaps as strong an urge as you do to see some sense made of all this, some roadmap that can be followed so fewer naming disputes arise. On the bright side,

870:"If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world – if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries – use the most common title throughout, and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold: 1594:: "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" would come to the same conclusion; it continues with "as you would find it in reliable sources", and users above and below have shown that reliable sources use both quite commonly, so there is no see-saw effect in favor of the English-language name. 2213:

bound to follow US marketing considerations. The general policy that the English language Knowledge is the international version and should avoid overt national bias. Most English language speakers do not live in the USA and practice in the rest of the world does have to be taken into account, at least for non US topics. --

1970:"Knowledge articles and article titles, French titles of literary works of art should be put into English, if the work is well-known by its title in English (with redirects from the French title). If it is more well-known by its title in French, then French should be maintained (with redirects from the English title)". 917: 1244:. I agree with Tassedethe's rationale. To me, this appears to be an ENGVAR issue. For whatever reason (presumably the first contributor was British), this article uses what is effectively the UK title. I see no reason why we should violate ENGVAR and change to from British English to North American English. 2807:), there was no unanimity and the film remained solely under its French title. If anyone cares to propose one or more French films eligible to gain or retain their English-language titles under the stringently-enunciated guideline above, such contribution would provide a topic for a subsequent discussion. 2971:

was written for a reason), and that a broader discussion (note I say discussion, not debate) needs to happen, in a wider forum that single film or project talk pages. The numbered points you've raised here are a good starting point, perhaps. Anyone who's noticed my MOS/AT/NC comings and goings knows

2831:

One point worth noting about orthography (and I'm not criticizing you, I'm just raising it as something to keep in mind, because it's a logic and policy issue that comes up frequently on Knowledge): It's not noteworthy or important that a mainstream movie or opera guide written for Americans or Brits

2509:

Before the closure, with apparently obvious results, a few matters with wider implication should be raised if or when this subject is revisited in future years. Above, I indicated what seemed to be reasonable interpretations of the various applicable guidelines, but such rules, by their very nature,

1657:

As far as point No. 2 goes, every RM is a proposal to alter the existing consensus. After an RM is closed, guidelines are modified to reflect the new consensus. So this is proper procedure. The reason this title is used as an example is presumably because it was the subject of an earlier RM. Whatever

1542:

An entirely different reason to oppose is that, usually misspelled as "band apart", as in Quentin Tarantino's company and the rock band, it's actually become a stock phrase in English, including American English, so no heads asplode. I've more than once heard people say things like "me and my friends

2212:

I'm slightly confused by that last sentence - I wonder if you meant the opposite. But that aside, your argument above seems to be steering dangerously close to saying that US usage should be the default. For example the Criterion collection seems to be a Region 1 DVD release for North America, so is

1071:

How does this improve the "strike rate", whatever that is? The reason for common name is that's the name that is commonly used. Misnaming this one with the not-common name will not help those common readers who enter "bande a part" in the Search box. Since the common name is not available, we should

634:

If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world - if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries - use the native title throughout, and explain the other titles in the

1106:

are 4893—that is 4893 visits for the disambiguated French title against 3873 visits for the English title. There really isn't that much to choose between them (55% against 45%), and generally we avoid disambiguation terms if we can. The fact that a reader may still search on the French title is no

587:

Neither Odile nor Arthur identifies the dance as the Madison, and the steps performed are not consistent with those in the movie "Hairspray", nor with those very vaguely described in a newspaper article which documents the origin of the Madison. Follow wiki link to Madison (Dance) for more on this.

1474:

renaming) just because America is large and populous misinterprets the guideline – it's not about national headcount but world-wide distribution. Nowhere, no way, no how does Knowledge ever give precedence to US interests on such a basis. The US market (including the US DVD market countries, like

3028:

Obviously, this applies to a thing with some sort of "organization" (multiple meanings intended, heh) behind it, that can give out whatever name, like products or works. There aren't really going to be "original names" for things like wars and revolutions, though I guess there's always "the Great

3020:

If "the original name is the primary name" was the base rule, or guideline, or whatever you want to call it, there would be no problems... not very real ones. The closest thing you'd get are those certain groups who would prefer to have the article title represent whatever region they live in. NO

2256:

As to your other point regarding the English language Knowledge representing the international edition, within the confines of the narrow topic of foreign-language film titles, it comes as no surprise that in most of the world's cultures such titles are routinely translated into local idiom. The

1186:

advises us that "when there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." However, I'm not convinced that the title "Band of Outsiders" is sufficiently common on a global level to justify the

2753:

creates a precedent that only French films which are known by a single unified English-language title across the entire English-speaking world are eligible for inclusion in the English-language Knowledge under their English-language titles, then none will pass the test and no French film will be

2873:

orthography of bird names, and they're obviously missing the forest for the trees when they make such an absurd argument, since no other publication type in the world capitalizes common names of bird species, any more than they'd write "Johnson's two Goldfish were eaten by his Domestic Cat, who

2003:

as print guides and reviews in publications, then such English-language title should automatically have primacy of use in the main title header, with the foreign-language title appearing in the lead sentence and in redirects. It is important that the English-language title be given precedence

1567:

and numerous ArbCom cases determining that WikiProjects do not get to make up their own rules or ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. I'm sure doing whatever the Criterion Collection does is a useful default, and one I'd agree with, but it actually has precisely zero relevance here.

564:

But is the current version quite right? While Franz does see the car of Arthur’s uncle on the motorway, surely it does not have the uncle in it but the veteran of Dien Bien Phu, the legionnaire, who then has the fatal exchange of shots with Arthur in the garden of Mme Victoria’s villa?

1620:

Last two rationales added later. PS: I have no stake in the outcome, interest in the article or feelings about any participants, I just find that there's a lot of misinterpretation here, and hopefully an analysis of this depth can be re-used as precedential in later renaming cases. —

1107:

more of a problem than a reader searching on the English title, because the redirect would still take care of that. It's not a big deal really, I can live with it either way, it just seemed at odds with my reading of the guidelines which is the only reason I brought the issue up.

1459:; I doubt the rename nominator was aware of the film naming convention bit; just saying there's an extant consensus to overcome outside of participants on this talk page, in order for this page to be renamed, since it would necessarily also change the wording of a guideline). 1978:"The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)". 1677:

debate. Sometimes articles are written at the "correct" names (from the viewpoint of the current consensus at the NC guideline in question) and stay there and are noted and used as good examples. This is true of all guidelines, really. Like, there are many examples at

939:– If it were not disambiguated I would oppose the move on the basis that the French name is more widely used in English language literature, but since its French title actually serves as a disambiguation page it makes sense to have the article under its English title. 1164:: the proper title for an article should be first determined. In this case, the article on the film would normally be titled "Bande à part" (illustrated by Tassedethe). Second check for ambiguity. The normal title would be ambiguous, so a qualifier is used: 2410: 2350:

dispute. We're not presenting arguments as to the use of "capitalise" vs "capitalize" or "colour" vs "color", but regarding the film's French-language title vs its English-language title. It must be considered an overreach to insist that since

598:

This has been addressed by someone else within the article. Actress Anna Karina has been quoted as saying that the actors themselves (not the characters) referred to the dance as the "Madison," hence the name (this is cited in the article).

3051:

The short and simple explanation is that film titles are translated into native idiom across every culture and nation in the world. The most obvious examples are the most telling ones. In the English-speaking world, not a single work of

2287:, which includes a few films. Above, I already listed thirteen French films with indisputable titles and there is a considerable number of others. These French titles are so ingrained in our culture that the films in question, such as 1340:- I find it hard to believe that a name a former film student has never seen attached to this film would be considered its common name. English-language sources seem entirely to use the original title and I see no reason to ignore this. 1506:

apply "because" this is an article naming conventions issue is also faulty – when it comes to language issues, the naming conventions necessarily follow MOS, not the other way around. This remains true even though someone's slapped a

1942:

and a number of others. They are listed under their French titles in all film guides and are accepted as such across the English-speaking world, including both sides of the Atlantic. This is most definitely not the case with

2282:

In fact, both British and American cultures are probably more open to foreign-language titles than any other major linguistic culture. A few editors even made an attempt to compile some examples of this trend in Knowledge's

2115:

in French often is not used to literally mean "child", much less "infant", and may well be referring (in a particular register) to adults, just like certain uses of "girl", "boy", "kid" and "baby" in English. And in French,

1672:

I'm not 100% certain I follow that reasoning. There are many things written, and many examples illustrating those things, in all our naming conventions that just are the way they are and didn't get there because there was a

153: 1462:

A counterbalance would be that some level of deference is often shown to preferences of editors of an article on that article's talk page about matters affecting that article, so if the arguments for rename were strong,

1435:

Tassedethe's observation of the film naming convention's guideline on this type of dispute, and it use of this very film as an example, demonstrates this is a very clear case of precisely what the guideline

2510:

are not subject to ambiguity or individual meaning, otherwise every editor could shape them to his or her own personal ends. We should therefore agree on what the application of those rules really entails.

2023:" and yet, due apparently to the fact that the English-language titles are equally well-known, appear in Knowledge's main title headers under those English titles. In fact, as far as British guides such as 2934:

reliable. Sorry to go on a such length about it, but this is an issue popping up with increasing frequency, and I feel that the Wikipedian vs. specialist rationale needs more exposure in more forums. —

1686:, not at all because there had been a big debate at those pages and the debate happened to go the way of that consensus. So, either I'm badly misunderstanding you, or have to strenuously disagree. It 1411:. ENGVAR is supposed to be about stuff like "soccer" vs. "football". "Bande à part" is a phrase that British readers would readily identify as French. Special treatment for French is a throwback to 1222:

less common than the most common one) is another possible solution. Which is preferable varies from case to case. (In this instance, I'm not convinced that the advantages of switching to "

1596:(And see much further down where I explode the WikiMyth that specialist publications are actually reliable sources at all on matters of style and grammar. 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)) 2795:

have them all under their French titles. As previously mentioned, even on the rare occasion that Americans use the French-language title and British use the English-language title (

1390: 1382: 147: 2444:

exchange involved only three participants, with many of the similar arguments seen here and, ultimately, the title remained in French. Also of interest may be a discussion at

1543:

are a real band apart in this scene", etc. These are clear (if second-hand) references to the film title, and mean "band of outsiders", so it's not like people are confused.

1800:

the current title, but SMcCandlish's arguments are utterly convincing for me. America is not the world, nor is it the English-speaking world; it also seems that the film is

2865:). They do it because bird watching guide books and bird journals do it, to make the names stand out; the project claims this practice in bird publications makes those an 2448:

which centers upon a related, if somewhat different matter of using English-language orthography in foreign-language film titles adopted into the English-speaking world.

539: 1590:: "If it is more well-known by its title in French, then French should be maintained" clearly applies, as it's only well known by the English title in North America. 1381:. The proposed title is an official translation, the way the definitive DVD is sold and distributed in the largest English-speaking market, as you can see on . I get 3217:

This phrase appears in the opening credits. Obviously Legrand did not stop making music for movies after this film. Why does this text appear and what does it mean?

1214:

a qualifier appended) cannot be used as the article's title. One of the examples mentioned earlier in the paragraph is ambiguity. Adding a qualifier is a possible

513: 3100:

The plot is a little too short and needs to be expanded more, also information on the films production, and reception needs to be added to the article as well.--

3095: 3109: 1299: 3212: 1307:

I would support the proposed move if each of the two titles held similar standing in the English-speaking world. I'm not convinced that this is the case. —

457:

23:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) I saw the film recently. I also saw "The DaVinci Code" recently. I have also been to the Louvre. It was filmed in the Louvre.

2284: 1965: 1587: 2198:

for the French title, etc on the other. I will vote against the change, but there appears to be a sufficient number of votes for the proposal to succeed.

913: 430: 337: 1999:, it would seem to mean that if a foreign-language film has an English-language title which is established as a primary or even secondary title in such 1493:

or, absent any, about not changing American English to British English in general articles just because you prefer British English. Citing it here is a

1555:

be unrecognizable. But the point stands on its own too – the French title in this case isn't "weird" to English speakers. 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

1373: 1108: 1040: 1004: 940: 1804:

by its French title. Due to the microcosm of various 'community pockets', it is hardly surprising that inconsistencies exist, in that the iconic film

698:

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level.

2955: 2889: 2492: 1818: 1641: 999:, so Tassedthe's argument isn't actually applicable in this case, unless you plan on making this article the primary topic. Everyone who searches on 948: 559: 2222: 1835: 1332: 1311: 929: 3089: 1359: 608: 3029:

War" for WWI (I'd love a solution to this one; remember that PBS documentary?). I don't think it'd be fair to apply onto a person either, but...

1992: 1424: 1177: 1142: 574: 309: 1745: 1253: 986: 2642:). Individual books, however, which discuss any given aspect of film, may use upper-case or lower-case, depending on the author's predilection. 2207: 1714: 1667: 1116: 1081: 965: 2816: 2457: 2371:

represents an American variety of English. I have consulted at least ten guides, which, in addition to those listed in my nomination, include

2076: 1784: 1773: 1467:

participants might say "whatever" and readily agree to change the wording over there, no questions asked. However, the arguments are very weak.

1230: 1205: 1191: 1066: 1048: 1030: 1012: 2233:

My apologies for the unclear meaning. The above sentence, enhanced to remove any ambiguity, should state: "I will vote against the change of

2140: 1841: 1280: 485:

The article says this movie influenced Quentin Tarentino and Hal Hartley. Where is this influence seen? What movies, what scenes? Tarentino's

44: 3206: 2996: 2840:

make them a reliable source on orthography of film titles. Lots of people smoke crack, too, but this doesn't make it a good idea, as it were.

2553:), all the titles there, including proper names well-known in English-language mythology, English history and English-language translation ( 956:

on similar grounds to Tassedethe. The film is far more commonly referred to in English-language sources under its original (French) title.

2734:

and scores of newspaper and magazine reviews. If all those references are deemed insufficient for the English-language Knowledge to list

702: 3249: 669: 592: 453:

Was the nine-minute run through the Louvre referred to in the article actually filmed in the Louvre? What's the source for this record?

2104: 3254: 2347: 1973: 1591: 475: 79: 3045: 2930:

and the like, even when it comes to such specialties as film and birds, on which those specialist publications are otherwise probably

1955:, WikiProject Film has traditionally used the Criterion collection as an indication for deciding each film's title. If it remains as 1464: 1440: 461: 168: 3146:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

865: 3136: 135: 3234: 656: 299: 1053:

So if a foreign title is at a disambig page, it should be moved to an English title? That's the worst rationale I've ever read.

2910:

The point being, populist books are good sources of information about the facts of their subjects, not about grammar and style

855: 3239: 738: 85: 3229: 2892:. They've promoted this "convention" elsewhere, too, resulting in a huge mess of capitalization in many non-bird articles.) 2646: 2615: 2245:, but judging by the tenor of the comments here, there appears to be a sufficient number of votes for the proposal to move 1266:

be appropriate to switch from one English variety to another when "a term/spelling carries less ambiguity". An example is

690:

In any event, I'll correct the grammar of the article, which is missing a verb. --Jeremy Butler 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

676: 624: 535: 2785:

to return it to its English title and the results would very likely be as unsuccessful as they are here, since Halliwell,

2092:

of the title meaning the Upper Circle in a theatre, ie "the Gods", a connotation that "Paradise" in English does not have.

679:! I didn't realize that the UK prefers the native title. Indeed, in the US the native title is rarely used--unlike, say, 517: 497: 2645:

No need to specify operas again which, admittedly, are a separate subject, except to note that the strict application of

509: 1997:"...normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world) 129: 3259: 3244: 3009:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2095:"Band of Outsiders" is another leaden inept prosaic clunking mistranslation, which is another reason not to prefer it. 838:. An important aspect in such titling controversies is also DVD release and, regarding the case under discussion, the 721:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

543: 30: 2876:(That's not an exaggerated argument – those are the recognized common names of all four of those species, and this is 3015: 2990: 2949: 2704: 2674:

or to any other English-language title since it has virtually no attribution under an English-language title, unlike

2486: 2134: 1767: 1708: 1635: 1612: 1455:"asking the other parent" to try to change consensus made at one page by re-raising an issue on another. (I imply no 1276:

However, I'm not convinced that the title "Band of Outsiders" is sufficiently common to justify the proposed move. —

820: 582: 275: 3128: 2088:

probably should be known under its original title, because "Children of Paradise" is a stupid mistranslation -- the

693: 614: 387: 125: 1035:

The whole point of the naming guidelines is to use the most common film title as the title of the article (as per

3114: 2658: 2514: 2472:

thing, then. Some people above were actually raising an ENGVAR spect, though, which is why I commented on it. —

1295: 379: 99: 2579: 2333:

magazine and film guide who have insisted on using French titles for most French films, including those such as

2654: 973:

Per Tassedethe. Only in North America is the English-language title used, so I believe it should remain as is.

466: 104: 20: 1274:

and converted from American English to British English to eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguation.

175: 2694: 2120:

can also, e.g. in the surname l'Enfant, be a specific reference to the Christ Child, not to random kiddos. —

810: 391: 383: 74: 3186: 2796: 2746: 2425: 448: 266: 227: 202: 1582:

a good idea; someone lower down points out that C.C. is entirely US-centric. 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

2786: 2519: 2409:, which does not have a main entry for the film, refers to both titles in its article on French cinema. 2326: 65: 3161:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2918:, so the preferences of geeky specialist publications, be they film guides or bird guides, are actually 2861:

insistence on capitalization of the common/vernacular names of birds, as in "Bald Eagle" (see debate at

2424:

Those who would like to delve further into related topics may be interested in the recent discussion at

3127:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3025:, where all others are alternatives; no exceptions. Deriving these name is usually simple enough, too. 2777: 2543: 2531: 1985: 1808:

article really ought to reside at its French title for the same reason why this should not be moved. --

1563:

prefers to do for convenience or as a default or even as a strong preference isn't relevant, again per

1560: 1291: 493:

did Bertolucci pay homage to the Louvre scene? What scene is it and how was the mise-en-scene similar?

374: 332: 2561: 2405: 2055:) to reflect English-language orthography. Thus, even though as many English-language references for 1086:

By strike rate I mean the number of unique visits a page actually gets. Take the page view stats for

2525: 2259: 2148: 2067:, those titles and many such others have not been proposed for moves to their original French titles. 1926: 1674: 1017:

I don't see how the disambig element to the current title is relevant to a move to an English title.

2610: 2604: 2583:, etc) are in French and, as a further element, do not even adhere to English-language orthography ( 1902: 1218:

to this problem. As the policy indicates, using an alternative common name (provided that it isn't

995:

It's not under its French title though; nowhere other than Knowledge will you see it referred to as

141: 3064: 2968: 2731: 2638: 2632: 2599: 2567: 2445: 2315: 1938: 1691: 1564: 1448: 274:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3177: 3105: 3085: 3021:

language of the Knowledge, or ANY encyclopedic source, should EVER do this. The original name is

2812: 2620: 2453: 2203: 2072: 2025: 851: 190: 109: 3137:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080719062937/http://www.filmforum.org/archivedfilms/bandpress.html

3162: 2771: 2749:

for a reason. Hundreds of other English-language French film titles exist in Knowledge and if

2395: 2241: 1866: 1801: 1547: 1451:

of little clumps of editors overriding site-wide guidelines to suit pet peeves, and guidelines

834: 784: 778: 707: 3120: 2676: 2353: 1864:

There is a collection of French-language film titles which, in addition to the already-listed

1850: 1165: 743: 24: 2984: 2943: 2759: 2650: 2591: 2585: 2537: 2480: 2289: 2128: 2035:

are concerned, all the key titles of French cinema, including virtually the entire output of

1884: 1815: 1761: 1735: 1702: 1629: 1606: 1536: 1112: 1044: 1008: 944: 760: 754: 734: 570: 208: 2602:

regarding use of English-language orthography in French, Italian, Spanish, etc film titles (

471:

Does accessible in the article mean that it is easy to get a copy of or easy to understand?

3169: 2573: 2428:, which, in a surprising turnabout, had the British "side" use the English-language title, 2235: 2218: 1831: 1495: 1328: 1183: 1138: 925: 766: 748: 604: 555: 531: 505: 1690:

normal procedure for guideline pages to be rewritten willy-nilly to reflect the fact that

897: 8: 3070: 3041: 2722: 2373: 1878: 1532: 1478:

Betty Logan's disambiguation-based rationale mixes apples and oranges, and isn't germane.

1350: 699: 55: 3140: 905: 3101: 3081: 2862: 2808: 2626: 2449: 2302: 2270: 2199: 2068: 2031: 1663: 1521: 1420: 1368: 1201: 1173: 1091: 1077: 847: 839: 494: 472: 454: 70: 3168:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3076: 2321: 3202: 2881: 2682: 2555: 2359: 2335: 1951: 1908: 1856: 1249: 1223: 1210:

In the quoted text, "problems" refers to reasons why the subject's most common name (

1087: 1062: 1026: 982: 589: 480: 458: 51: 1961:, it will stand out as the sole title not following this well-established precedent. 1439:

This necessarily also means that there's a consensus against this rename already at

3058: 2979: 2938: 2475: 2469: 2343: 2310: 2195: 2123: 2100: 1810: 1797: 1756: 1697: 1624: 1601: 1482: 1452: 1367:. What everyone else said, the English name isn't even the most common name here. — 1259: 1036: 961: 730: 566: 2630:), which consist of alphabetical film listings, use English-language orthography ( 2154:. All the pros and cons have already been submitted here. It would be the usual 884:

This film was released in the UK under its original title. It's listed as such in

161: 3124: 2858: 2549: 2214: 1896: 1827: 1511: 1324: 1308: 1277: 1271: 1227: 1188: 1168:. The two determinations (title and qualifier) are independent of each other. -- 1134: 921: 600: 551: 378:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can 2517:. Other than four exceptions, left unchanged following moves by other editors ( 2436: 2306: 1957: 1945: 1412: 3053: 3037: 2973: 2666: 2294: 1872: 1569: 1341: 790: 2007:

Using the two familiar examples above, I can point to the American-referenced

3223: 3056:

has been shown under its original title and, if referenced, such classics as

2915: 2885: 2765: 2430: 2298: 2264: 1890: 1659: 1573: 1486: 1456: 1444: 1416: 1197: 1169: 1073: 772: 523: 258: 2880:

what certain tendentious WP:BIRDS editors have done with bird common names,

3194: 2782: 2151: 2000: 1779: 1740: 1528: 1245: 1055: 1019: 975: 876:

is a 1964 comedy-drama film directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It is released as

666: 641:

is a 1964 comedy-drama film directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It is released as

486: 420: 1920: 1072:

be consistent with the spirit of the naming guidelines and qualify it. --

489:

was probably influenced by the film, given the similarity in their names.

2096: 2036: 1932: 957: 366: 2916:

Knowledge is not a specialist publication, but a generalist encyclopedia

2339:

which have well-known and well-established English-language equivalents.

1914: 1682:

of how to use and not use icons and many of those examples were chosen

653: 3156:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

1949:. Even discounting all the guides listed above which reference it as 916:, referring to it by its original title. Plus hundreds of GBooks hits 752:– Proposed change is analogous to such key titles in French cinema as 1679: 3119:

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on

2874:

choked to death on them, so he got a Guinea Pig and a Dog instead."

2618:. Notably, all English-language guides, both American and British ( 715:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

2274: 2044: 1753:: I added my ninth and tenth rationales after Pablo X commented. — 1732:, pretty much per SMcCandlish's far more eloquent reasoning above. 1559:

To address a "support" rationale buried in the section below, what

395: 3003:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

2513:

As a first step, I invite everyone to glance at the 464 titles in

1470:

The idea that the film NC applies in the opposite direction (i.e.

350: 326: 2791: 2330: 1551:

bit below, where an English translation like "Goodbye, Children"

242: 221: 2309:

have remained in their original form. In his essay on titles,

2040: 1578:

I'm actually less sure now that following Criterion Collection

1399: 1385:(74 deghosted) post-1990 English-language Google Book hits for 1267: 271: 1196:

Actually, I don't see the use of a qualifier as a problem. --

619:

Shouldn't this article use the film's English-language title:

2417:

is at least as ingrained in English-language film culture as

2257:

French are, of course, no exception, screening, for example,

1130: 2047:

are listed under their French titles, although capitalized (

1485:

issue, as proposed by several, very badly misinterprets the

2688: 2386: 1993:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films

1981: 1290:. Totally agree with Jenks24, and ,therefore, Tassedethe. 804: 798:

is not one of these exceptions. It is, in fact, listed as

3131:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1094:(8766 from the last 90 days). Obviously, visitors to the 652:

Also, there are redirects on the Godard titles I checked.

2700:

Mick Martin's & Marsha Porter's DVD & Video Guide

1826:. Titles should not be translated for the sake of it. -- 816:

Mick Martin's & Marsha Porter's DVD & Video Guide

2434:, while the American "side" preferred the French title, 635:

first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold.

502:

Accessible as in easy to understand by larger audiences.

2614:), but perhaps such a consensus may also fall afoul of 2367:

therefore represents British variety of English, while

1694:

changed something at an article. Quite the opposite. —

2799:), even though the film is best known by both titles ( 782:. There are, needless to say, well-known exceptions: 160: 3141:

http://www.filmforum.org/archivedfilms/bandpress.html

1966:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/France & French-related

892:. You can also find recent newspaper references e.g. 2313:

points out the difficulties of many foreign titles (

2285:

List of artworks known in English by a foreign title

356: 270:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 248: 15: 1319:The policy at WP:COMMONNAME speaks of a name being 675:Huh. Obviously, I was too quick with my reading of 2664:Exaggeratedly, only a madman would propose moving 631:Actually, this is an example in that MoS section: 2147:A strong argument which deserves to be tested at 1003:will have to go through the disambiguation page. 3221: 2598:As previously mentioned, a consensus emerged at 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3096:Needs to be expanded and missing a few sections 2832:uses English "Title Case Like This" for titles 2657:with a titular and orthographic resemblance to 2649:as presently written and interpreted may leave 2174:, Google books, Criterion, etc on one side and 394:. To improve this article, please refer to the 1588:WP:Manual of Style/France & French-related 1415:, when French was the international language. 3213:"Michel Legrand's music for the last(?) time" 1984:listing, the other six references constitute 1658:the outcome, this RM supersedes earlier RMs. 866:Knowledge:Naming conventions (films)#Examples 627:. --Jeremy Butler 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 174: 2015:, which appear in all British references as 1980:It can be argued that, even discounting the 2857:This is really the exact same issue as the 1499:, as it has no bearing on the case at hand. 188: 3032:(btw this movie looks super cute and i've 2348:Knowledge:Naming conventions (use English) 1974:Knowledge:Naming conventions (use English) 1964:As for article titling policy and rules, 528:Does the plot need to be more than a stub? 390:. To use this banner, please refer to the 2742:, than no film can attain such a listing. 1684:because they reflected the consensus well 2754:listed under its English-language title. 2714:The New York Times Directory of the Film 2325:) and yet, it was Halliwell, along with 830:The New York Times Directory of the Film 3222: 2541:) or a couple of French translations ( 1545:(This is partially in response to the 1502:As an aside, the argument that ENGVAR 1102:, so in reality the unique visits for 665:, that's why we keep the French title. 623:? This would seem to be suggested by 3068:would be virtually unrecognizable as 2974:on one level it doesn't matter at all 2757:Anyone can try moving, for instance, 2342:Although it has been portrayed as an 1778:Which adds another 20% to my oppose. 1133:. That makes the ratio nearer 70/30. 661:Yeah, the British DVD is released as 2912:even as it applies to those subjects 2647:Knowledge:Naming conventions (films) 2616:Knowledge:Naming conventions (films) 677:Knowledge:Naming conventions (films) 625:Knowledge:Naming conventions (films) 372:This article is within the scope of 264:This article is within the scope of 184: 2976:, since redirects work fine. :-) — 2710:Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 1592:WP:Naming conventions (use English) 1430:Oppose, after careful consideration 890:The Biographical Dictionary of Film 826:Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 3250:Start-Class French cinema articles 2797:Talk:Caché (film)#Cache not Hidden 2738:under its English-language title, 2600:Talk:La Strada#Upper or Lower Case 2446:Talk:La Strada#Upper or Lower Case 2426:Talk:Caché (film)#Cache not Hidden 419: 14: 3271: 3255:French cinema task force articles 3123:. Please take a moment to review 2468:We're in strong agreement on the 1533:it's not about "chain of command" 1226:" outweigh the disadvantages.) — 1090:(3873 from the last 90 days) and 683:, which is seldom referred to as 428:This article is supported by the 3147: 2781:to its French title and start a 2705:Steven H. Scheuer's Movies on TV 2357:is the film's British title and 1491:close national ties to a subject 821:Steven H. Scheuer's Movies on TV 388:regional and topical task forces 359: 349: 325: 251: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2922:reliable on style matters than 2659:Category:French-language operas 2515:Category:French-language operas 2440:. Unlike this discussion, the 2063:could probably be found as for 1125:redirect are separate from the 1121:Small aside. The stats for the 304:This article has been rated as 3235:Mid-importance France articles 2890:7+ years of constant criticism 2655:Category:French-language films 2363:is the film's American title, 1842:Additional nominating comments 864:per the explicit statement in 1: 3191:19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC) – 3090:14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 2886:tens of thousands of articles 1618:22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1465:WT:Naming conventions (films) 1441:WT:Naming conventions (films) 609:18:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 560:18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 498:06:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 476:00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 278:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 3240:All WikiProject France pages 2997:23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2956:23:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2884:capitalization in literally 2817:07:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2747:Knowledge:Other stuff exists 2695:Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 2493:23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2458:10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 2223:16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 2208:04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 2141:23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2105:00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 2077:22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 1836:19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 1819:01:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 1785:21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 1774:23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1746:23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1715:23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 1668:06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 1642:23:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1425:10:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1374:08:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1360:15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 1333:22:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1312:20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1300:11:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1281:20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1254:09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1231:13:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 1206:04:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 1192:20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1178:19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1143:05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 1117:04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 1082:04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 1067:10:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 1049:19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 1031:18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 1013:18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 987:18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 966:18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 949:17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 930:15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 856:03:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 840:definitive Criterion edition 811:Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 739:03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 593:21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 575:22:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 462:20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 284:Knowledge:WikiProject France 7: 3230:Start-Class France articles 2520:Dialogues of the Carmelites 2385:, all of which, along with 2111:Aside: Not to mention that 1991:Interpreting another rule, 1802:well-known around the world 703:02:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 287:Template:WikiProject France 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 3276: 2778:The Umbrellas of Cherbourg 2580:Krapp ou La dernière bande 2544:The Love for Three Oranges 1395:Godard "Band of Outsiders" 670:12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 657:11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 544:19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 518:07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 404:Knowledge:WikiProject Film 310:project's importance scale 3260:WikiProject Film articles 3245:Start-Class film articles 3016:Shameless plug re: naming 2526:Orpheus in the Underworld 2411:A perusal of Google Books 2346:dispute, it's actually a 2266:Autant en emporte le vent 2149:Talk:Children of Paradise 1397:. As far as ENGVAR goes, 427: 407:Template:WikiProject Film 344: 303: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3207:19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 3110:16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 3006:Please do not modify it. 2732:The Criterion Collection 2718:The Motion Picture Guide 2639:Tous les matins du monde 2633:Tous les Matins du Monde 2194:, Google books (again), 1939:Tous les Matins du Monde 1481:The idea that this is a 1321:recognizable and natural 718:Please do not modify it. 694:WikiProject class rating 615:English or French Title? 431:French cinema task force 3115:External links modified 3046:13:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 2924:Chicago Manual of Style 2406:Encyclopædia Britannica 2013:"The Rules of the Game" 1270:, which was moved from 3036:to get my eyes on it) 2621:Halliwell's Film Guide 2396:Encyclopedia Americana 2251:Les Enfants du Paradis 2242:Les Enfants du Paradis 2086:Les Enfants du Paradis 2061:Les Enfants du Paradis 2026:Halliwell's Film Guide 1548:Au Revoir, les Enfants 1447:, policy also forbids 1403:has eight results for 886:Halliwell's Film Guide 835:Encyclopedia Americana 802:in such references as 779:Breathless (1960 film) 424: 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 2680:, which is listed as 2651:Category:French films 2592:La Damnation de Faust 2586:La damnation de Faust 2538:The Tales of Hoffmann 2290:Au Revoir les Enfants 1885:Au Revoir les Enfants 1387:Godard "Bande à part" 1292:Gareth Griffith-Jones 761:The Rules of the Game 755:Grand Illusion (film) 423: 100:Neutral point of view 2379:Motion Picture Guide 2276:Le Discours d'un roi 2247:Children of Paradise 2236:Children of Paradise 2017:"La Grande Illusion" 1796:, I was leaning for 1734:Now what about that 1445:consensus can change 1393:(189 deghosted) for 767:Children of Paradise 449:Filmed in the Louvre 105:No original research 3121:Bande à part (film) 3071:Det sjunde inseglet 2723:Microsoft Cinemania 2677:Bande à part (film) 2374:Microsoft Cinemania 2168:Martin & Porter 1986:WP:RELIABLE SOURCES 1879:Au Hasard Balthazar 1851:Bande à part (film) 1561:WP:WikiProject Film 1453:strongly frown upon 1449:"local consensuses" 1166:Bande à part (film) 1127:Bande à part (film) 1104:Bande à part (film) 1100:Bande à part (film) 1092:Bande_à_part_(film) 997:Bande à part (film) 744:Bande à part (film) 380:join the discussion 25:Bande à part (film) 3180:InternetArchiveBot 2728:Variety Film Guide 2627:TimeOut Film Guide 2532:Samson and Delilah 2504:A few more details 2383:Variety Film Guide 2260:Gone with the Wind 2032:TimeOut Film Guide 1927:La Cage aux Folles 1675:WP:Requested moves 1586:Another I missed: 1489:; ENGVAR is about 1098:get redirected to 902:The New York Times 882:in North America." 425: 267:WikiProject France 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3209: 3204: 3088: 3065:Wild Strawberries 2994: 2969:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 2953: 2893: 2815: 2740:Band of Outsiders 2683:Band of Outsiders 2556:Christophe Colomb 2490: 2456: 2415:Band of Outsiders 2401:Band of Outsiders 2391:Band of Outsiders 2369:Band of Outsiders 2360:Band of Outsiders 2336:Band of Outsiders 2316:Wild Strawberries 2271:The King's Speech 2206: 2138: 2075: 2057:À Bout de Souffle 1952:Band of Outsiders 1909:La Belle Noiseuse 1867:À Nous la Liberté 1857:Band of Outsiders 1817: 1806:À bout de souffle 1771: 1712: 1692:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 1644: 1639: 1616: 1597: 1583: 1565:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 1556: 1409:Band of Outsiders 1356: 1347: 1224:Band of Outsiders 1187:proposed move. — 1123:Band of Outsiders 1096:Band of Outsiders 1088:Band of Outsiders 879:Band of Outsiders 854: 844:Band of Outsiders 800:Band of Outsiders 785:À Nous la Liberté 749:Band of Outsiders 645:in North America. 643:Band of Outsiders 621:Band of Outsiders 534:comment added by 508:comment added by 446: 445: 442: 441: 438: 437: 382:and see lists of 320: 319: 316: 315: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3267: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3190: 3181: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3086:(talk)(contribs) 3084: 3059:The Seventh Seal 3008: 2995: 2989: 2988: 2954: 2948: 2947: 2875: 2811: 2491: 2485: 2484: 2452: 2399:also references 2311:Leslie Halliwell 2202: 2139: 2133: 2132: 2071: 2021:"La Règle du Jeu 2009:"Grand Illusion" 1998: 1979: 1971: 1813: 1809: 1782: 1772: 1766: 1765: 1743: 1739: 1713: 1707: 1706: 1640: 1634: 1633: 1619: 1617: 1611: 1610: 1595: 1577: 1544: 1537:"chain of logic" 1526: 1520: 1516: 1510: 1371: 1357: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1058: 1022: 978: 850: 751: 720: 546: 520: 412: 411: 408: 405: 402: 375:WikiProject Film 369: 364: 363: 362: 353: 346: 345: 340: 329: 322: 321: 292: 291: 288: 285: 282: 261: 256: 255: 254: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 216: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3275: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3195: 3184: 3179: 3152: 3148: 3129:this simple FaQ 3117: 3098: 3080:, respectively. 3077:Smultronstället 3018: 3013: 3004: 2983: 2977: 2942: 2936: 2672:Pete the Madman 2611:La Bête humaine 2605:La Bête Humaine 2550:The Last Savage 2479: 2473: 2322:Smultronstället 2192:Daily Telegraph 2127: 2121: 1996: 1977: 1969: 1968:states that in 1903:La Bête Humaine 1897:Bob le Flambeur 1844: 1811: 1780: 1760: 1754: 1741: 1733: 1701: 1695: 1628: 1622: 1605: 1599: 1576:film articles. 1524: 1518: 1514: 1508: 1413:La Belle Époque 1400:The Independent 1369: 1351: 1342: 1272:Check (finance) 1056: 1020: 976: 910:Daily Telegraph 747: 716: 710: 696: 685:My Life to Live 617: 585: 583:"Madison" scene 529: 526: 503: 483: 469: 451: 409: 406: 403: 400: 399: 365: 360: 358: 335: 290:France articles 289: 286: 283: 280: 279: 257: 252: 250: 230: 201:on Knowledge's 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3273: 3263: 3262: 3257: 3252: 3247: 3242: 3237: 3232: 3214: 3211: 3174: 3173: 3166: 3144: 3143: 3135:Added archive 3116: 3113: 3097: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3082:—Roman Spinner 3054:Ingmar Bergman 3017: 3014: 3012: 3011: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2933: 2921: 2913: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2879: 2872: 2868: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2839: 2835: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2809:—Roman Spinner 2801:Caché (Hidden) 2760:Grand Illusion 2755: 2743: 2667:Pierrot le Fou 2662: 2643: 2596: 2589:, rather than 2562:Guillaume Tell 2511: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2461: 2460: 2450:—Roman Spinner 2422: 2340: 2295:Ingmar Bergman 2280: 2254: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2200:—Roman Spinner 2145: 2144: 2143: 2093: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2069:—Roman Spinner 2005: 1989: 1962: 1873:Pierrot le Fou 1843: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1821: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1736:Reservoir dogs 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1689: 1685: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1584: 1581: 1557: 1554: 1540: 1505: 1500: 1492: 1479: 1476: 1468: 1460: 1437: 1427: 1376: 1362: 1335: 1314: 1302: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1275: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1129:stats. See Q3 1069: 990: 989: 968: 951: 933: 932: 848:—Roman Spinner 791:Pierrot le Fou 724: 723: 711: 709: 708:Requested move 706: 700:BetacommandBot 695: 692: 673: 672: 659: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 616: 613: 612: 611: 584: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 536:68.235.241.206 525: 522: 482: 479: 468: 465: 450: 447: 444: 443: 440: 439: 436: 435: 426: 416: 415: 413: 371: 370: 354: 342: 341: 330: 318: 317: 314: 313: 306:Mid-importance 302: 296: 295: 293: 276:the discussion 263: 262: 246: 234: 233: 231:Mid‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3272: 3261: 3258: 3256: 3253: 3251: 3248: 3246: 3243: 3241: 3238: 3236: 3233: 3231: 3228: 3227: 3225: 3218: 3210: 3208: 3203: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102:Paleface Jack 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3073: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3055: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3024: 3010: 3007: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2992: 2986: 2982: 2981: 2975: 2970: 2957: 2951: 2945: 2941: 2940: 2931: 2929: 2925: 2919: 2917: 2911: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2877: 2870: 2866: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2837: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2805:Hidden (Caché 2802: 2798: 2794: 2793: 2788: 2787:David Thomson 2784: 2780: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2768: 2767: 2766:The 400 Blows 2762: 2761: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2685: 2684: 2679: 2678: 2673: 2669: 2668: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2641: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2629: 2628: 2623: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2607: 2606: 2601: 2597: 2594: 2593: 2588: 2587: 2582: 2581: 2576: 2575: 2570: 2569: 2564: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2540: 2539: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2501: 2494: 2488: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2433: 2432: 2431:Hidden (film) 2427: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2407: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2356: 2355: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2338: 2337: 2332: 2328: 2327:David Thomson 2324: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2303:Miklós Jancsó 2300: 2299:Andrzej Wajda 2296: 2292: 2291: 2286: 2281: 2278: 2277: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2255: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2243: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2231: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188:David Thomson 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2136: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1994: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1975: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1948: 1947: 1941: 1940: 1935: 1934: 1929: 1928: 1923: 1922: 1917: 1916: 1911: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1891:Belle de Jour 1887: 1886: 1881: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1859: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1846: 1845: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1816: 1814: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1792: 1786: 1783: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1769: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1737: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1716: 1710: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1693: 1687: 1683: 1681: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1643: 1637: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1614: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1552: 1550: 1549: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1523: 1513: 1503: 1501: 1498: 1497: 1490: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1377: 1375: 1372: 1370:Nightstallion 1366: 1363: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1349: 1346: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1303: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1279: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1240: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1184:WP:COMMONNAME 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1059: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 992: 991: 988: 984: 980: 979: 972: 969: 967: 963: 959: 955: 952: 950: 946: 942: 938: 935: 934: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 880: 877: 874: 871: 867: 863: 860: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 836: 831: 827: 823: 822: 817: 813: 812: 807: 806: 801: 797: 793: 792: 787: 786: 781: 780: 775: 774: 773:The 400 Blows 769: 768: 763: 762: 757: 756: 750: 745: 741: 740: 736: 732: 728: 722: 719: 713: 712: 705: 704: 701: 691: 688: 686: 682: 678: 671: 668: 664: 660: 658: 655: 651: 644: 640: 637: 636: 633: 632: 630: 629: 628: 626: 622: 610: 606: 602: 597: 596: 595: 594: 591: 576: 572: 568: 563: 562: 561: 557: 553: 549: 548: 547: 545: 541: 537: 533: 521: 519: 515: 511: 510:70.36.149.131 507: 500: 499: 496: 495:Theshibboleth 492: 488: 478: 477: 474: 473:Theshibboleth 464: 463: 460: 456: 455:Theshibboleth 433: 432: 422: 418: 417: 414: 410:film articles 397: 393: 392:documentation 389: 385: 381: 377: 376: 368: 357: 355: 352: 348: 347: 343: 339: 334: 331: 328: 324: 323: 311: 307: 301: 298: 297: 294: 277: 273: 269: 268: 260: 259:France portal 249: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 218: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3216: 3193: 3192: 3178: 3175: 3155: 3145: 3118: 3099: 3075: 3069: 3063: 3057: 3033: 3031: 3027: 3022: 3019: 3005: 3002: 2978: 2966: 2937: 2928:Hart's Rules 2927: 2923: 2804: 2800: 2790: 2776: 2770: 2764: 2758: 2751:Bande à part 2750: 2739: 2736:Bande à part 2735: 2727: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2703: 2699: 2693: 2687: 2681: 2675: 2671: 2665: 2637: 2631: 2625: 2619: 2609: 2603: 2590: 2584: 2578: 2574:Marie Stuart 2572: 2566: 2560: 2554: 2548: 2542: 2536: 2530: 2524: 2518: 2503: 2474: 2441: 2437:Caché (film) 2435: 2429: 2419:Bande à Part 2418: 2414: 2404: 2400: 2394: 2390: 2382: 2378: 2372: 2368: 2365:Bande à Part 2364: 2358: 2354:Bande à Part 2352: 2334: 2320: 2314: 2307:Yasujirō Ozu 2288: 2275: 2265: 2258: 2253:to succeed". 2250: 2246: 2240: 2234: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2089: 2085: 2065:Bande à Part 2064: 2060: 2056: 2053:Bande à part 2052: 2049:Bande à Part 2048: 2030: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 1958:Bande à Part 1956: 1950: 1946:Bande à Part 1944: 1937: 1931: 1925: 1919: 1913: 1907: 1901: 1895: 1889: 1883: 1877: 1871: 1865: 1855: 1849: 1847: 1823: 1805: 1793: 1755: 1750: 1729: 1696: 1623: 1600: 1546: 1496:non sequitur 1494: 1471: 1429: 1408: 1405:Bande à part 1404: 1398: 1394: 1386: 1378: 1364: 1353: 1344: 1337: 1320: 1316: 1304: 1287: 1263: 1258:As noted at 1241: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1161: 1126: 1122: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1054: 1018: 1001:Bande à part 1000: 996: 974: 970: 953: 936: 909: 901: 893: 889: 885: 881: 878: 875: 873:Bande à part 872: 869: 861: 843: 833: 829: 825: 819: 815: 809: 803: 799: 796:Bande à part 795: 789: 783: 777: 771: 765: 759: 753: 742: 727:No consensus 726: 725: 717: 714: 697: 689: 684: 681:Vivre sa vie 680: 674: 663:Bande à part 662: 642: 639:Bande à part 638: 620: 618: 590:Steve Pastor 586: 527: 501: 490: 487:A Band Apart 484: 470: 467:"accessible" 459:Steve Pastor 452: 429: 373: 305: 265: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2980:SMcCandlish 2939:SMcCandlish 2476:SMcCandlish 2413:shows that 2124:SMcCandlish 1933:La Chinoise 1848:For moving 1812:Ohconfucius 1757:SMcCandlish 1698:SMcCandlish 1625:SMcCandlish 1602:SMcCandlish 1517:instead of 1407:, four for 1109:Betty Logan 1041:Betty Logan 1005:Betty Logan 941:Betty Logan 731:Vegaswikian 687:in the US. 567:Hors-la-loi 530:—Preceding 504:—Preceding 367:Film portal 199:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 3224:Categories 3187:Report bug 2888:, despite 2772:Breathless 2215:AJHingston 1915:La Chienne 1876:, include 1828:Necrothesp 1325:AJHingston 1309:David Levy 1278:David Levy 1228:David Levy 1189:David Levy 1182:Actually, 1135:Tassedethe 922:Tassedethe 842:is titled 601:Portia1780 552:Portia1780 550:Expanded. 396:guidelines 384:open tasks 3170:this tool 3163:this tool 3038:Despatche 2867:authority 2834:in French 2745:Finally, 2470:WP:ENGVAR 2393:. While 2196:WP:ENGVAR 2176:Halliwell 1921:La Chèvre 1798:retaining 1680:MOS:ICONS 1572:does not 1522:Guideline 1483:WP:ENGVAR 1457:bad faith 1260:WP:RETAIN 1037:WP:COMMON 729:to move. 481:Influence 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3176:Cheers.— 3023:the name 2991:Contribs 2950:Contribs 2932:the most 2859:WP:BIRDS 2487:Contribs 2172:NY Times 2135:Contribs 2045:Truffaut 1976:states: 1972:, while 1768:Contribs 1738:film ... 1709:Contribs 1660:Kauffner 1636:Contribs 1613:Contribs 1531:lately; 1504:couldn't 1443:! While 1417:Kauffner 1216:solution 1198:JHunterJ 1170:JHunterJ 1074:JHunterJ 532:unsigned 506:unsigned 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3196:Painius 3125:my edit 2882:forcing 2878:exactly 2869:on the 2838:doesn't 2792:TimeOut 2331:TimeOut 2180:TimeOut 2164:Scheuer 2090:Paradis 1570:WP:FILM 1379:Support 1345:GRAPPLE 1305:Oppose. 1246:Jenks24 1212:without 1057:Lugnuts 1021:Lugnuts 977:Lugnuts 937:Support 912:(2008) 904:(2010) 896:(2008) 667:Cop 633 308:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2871:proper 2863:WT:MOS 2813:(talk) 2730:, 10. 2686:in 1. 2636:, not 2608:, not 2454:(talk) 2389:, use 2344:ENGVAR 2319:, not 2204:(talk) 2160:Maltin 2118:enfant 2113:enfant 2097:Jheald 2073:(talk) 2051:, not 2041:Godard 2037:Renoir 1824:Oppose 1794:Oppose 1730:Oppose 1574:WP:OWN 1512:Policy 1487:WP:MOS 1436:means. 1365:Oppose 1338:Oppose 1317:Oppose 1288:Oppose 1268:Cheque 1242:Oppose 1162:Oppose 971:Oppose 958:Jheald 954:Oppose 862:Oppose 852:(talk) 794:, but 338:French 281:France 272:France 228:France 205:scale. 126:Google 2987:ʕ(ل)ˀ 2985:Talk⇒ 2946:ʕ(ل)ˀ 2944:Talk⇒ 2783:WP:RM 2726:, 9. 2720:, 8. 2716:, 7. 2712:, 6. 2708:, 5. 2702:, 4. 2698:, 3. 2692:, 2. 2568:Médée 2483:ʕ(ل)ˀ 2481:Talk⇒ 2442:Caché 2184:Metro 2152:WP:RM 2131:ʕ(ل)ˀ 2129:Talk⇒ 2001:WP:RS 1781:pablo 1764:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1762:Talk⇒ 1742:pablo 1705:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1703:Talk⇒ 1688:isn't 1632:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1630:Talk⇒ 1609:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1607:Talk⇒ 1553:would 1529:WP:AT 1262:, it 894:Metro 654:Pepso 524:Plot? 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3106:talk 3074:and 3042:talk 2920:less 2689:IMDb 2653:and 2535:and 2387:IMDb 2381:and 2329:and 2269:and 2219:talk 2156:IMDb 2101:talk 2043:and 2029:and 2019:and 2011:and 1982:IMDb 1870:and 1832:talk 1751:Note 1664:talk 1535:but 1421:talk 1329:talk 1296:talk 1250:talk 1220:much 1202:talk 1174:talk 1139:talk 1131:here 1113:talk 1078:talk 1063:talk 1045:talk 1027:talk 1009:talk 983:talk 962:talk 945:talk 926:talk 918:link 914:link 906:link 898:link 888:and 832:and 805:IMDb 735:talk 605:talk 571:talk 556:talk 540:talk 514:talk 401:Film 386:and 333:Film 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3139:to 3062:or 3034:got 2803:or 2789:or 2775:or 2670:to 2305:or 2273:as 2263:as 2249:to 2239:to 2059:or 1854:to 1527:on 1472:pro 1391:667 1383:175 1264:can 900:, 788:or 776:or 491:How 300:Mid 176:TWL 3226:: 3108:) 3044:) 2926:, 2769:, 2763:, 2624:, 2595:). 2577:, 2571:, 2565:, 2559:, 2547:, 2529:, 2523:, 2506:: 2403:, 2377:, 2301:, 2297:, 2221:) 2190:, 2186:, 2182:, 2178:, 2170:, 2166:, 2162:, 2158:, 2103:) 2039:, 1936:, 1930:, 1924:, 1918:, 1912:, 1906:, 1900:, 1894:, 1888:, 1882:, 1834:) 1666:) 1598:— 1580:is 1525:}} 1519:{{ 1515:}} 1509:{{ 1432:: 1423:) 1389:, 1331:) 1298:) 1252:) 1204:) 1176:) 1141:) 1115:) 1080:) 1065:) 1047:) 1029:) 1011:) 985:) 964:) 947:) 928:) 920:. 908:, 868:: 846:. 828:, 824:, 818:, 814:, 808:, 770:, 764:, 758:, 746:→ 737:) 607:) 573:) 565:-- 558:) 542:) 516:) 336:: 156:) 54:; 3189:) 3185:( 3172:. 3165:. 3153:Y 3104:( 3040:( 2993:. 2952:. 2661:. 2489:. 2421:. 2279:. 2217:( 2137:. 2099:( 1995:( 1988:. 1860:: 1830:( 1770:. 1711:. 1662:( 1638:. 1615:. 1419:( 1354:X 1327:( 1294:( 1248:( 1200:( 1172:( 1137:( 1111:( 1076:( 1061:( 1043:( 1025:( 1007:( 981:( 960:( 943:( 924:( 733:( 603:( 569:( 554:( 538:( 512:( 434:. 398:. 312:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index