This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adaptation (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Adaptation (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Should this page not be titled Adaptation., and not redirected to Adaptation (movie) (no period)?
To fit with Wikipedia style, this page should remain at Adaptation (movie) and Adaptation. should be deleted. Wikipedia pages don't use periods normally. And the page Adaptation is a disambiguation page. Amelia Hunt 23:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
I now understand that there is a period in the actual movie title, so agree that the page title should reflect that. I support the proposed move. Amelia Hunt 17:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the period isn't for looks but an actual part of the title. Because of confusion on my part and the way things happened (I originally put Adaptation. up for rfd; per Netholic's suggestion I moved it to a page move) so please make sureyou voice your opinion on the WP:RM#Adaptation_.28movie.29_.26rarr.3B_Adaptation. vote since it's under way. Cburnett 20:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
Actual movie name is "Adaptation." [with a trailing full stop] and I want to move
Adaptation (movie) to
Adaptation. as well as saving the history.
Adaptation. is a redirect to
Adaptation (movie) and I think they should be swapped. As per Netholic's suggestion on the rfd page (
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#January_8 RFD has been removed), I bring the request here. My original intention was delete
Adaptation. and then move it.
Again on why. Adaptation (movie) is technically the wrong title since "Adaptation" is not the actual movie name but rather "Adaptation.". This point is why I think the content and history should be moved to the correct page (i.e., Adaptation.) and make Adaptation (movie) a redirect to Adaptation..
As for confusion between "Adaptation" and "Adaptation." (raised on the rfd page) I think a short note can be added to the tops. And there's still
Adaptation (movie) to point to the correct article in case someone tries to add an article of a movie entitled "Adaptation" who is unaware the actual title is "Adaptation." So either move the page or delete the redirect that is
Adaptation. (RFD has been removed). I'll be content if either happens so that the content about the movie appears under the correct article title.
Cburnett 05:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Up through here I have: 11 support, 6 oppose. Nearly 2 to 1 in favor. When exactly do we qualify it as "a consensus"? Cburnett 00:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again? Where is the archived discussion? This was voted on a couple of months ago. — Michael Z. 2005-04-27 23:26 Z
I wonder what would happen if someone were to officially name their new movie with a trailing space character — or let’s say with a newline character in the middle, I mean, why not? The Wikipedia article could look something like the following:
But that’s not the end of the fun. For example, for your next movie title, why not add a trailing paragraph separator instead of a newline character? It gets even more interesting when you start to consider the full range of control characters: of course, BEL immediately comes to mind, but I think the ultimate annoying movie title would be one that contained a NUL character.
If you think I’m being silly, please consider the fact that punctuation characters like periods and commas are the control characters of English. Including disruptive control characters in names is very confusing, and I think there is a limit to what kind of name games Wikipedia should honor at the cost of typographical clarity. Ending a movie title with a full stop for no reason crosses the line in my book. It’s just pointless typographical clutter.
— Daniel Brockman 11:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the line: "In the film, Kaufman represents McKee as the deus ex machina, as he gives Charlie the solution to his problematic situation." In the film Adaptation, Robert McKee was introduced very early in the story. His expertise with scripts was also introduced early, and it was mention ed that McKee and Charlie would both be in New York at the same time. Because his appearance was fully explained, he is not a deus ex machina. Furthermore, his advice does not resolve a conflict at all. It causes Charlie to seek out his brother's help, which actually complicates the plot. However, the alligator that comes out of no where to eat John Laroche at the end, THAT is a deus ex machina. - Luke (4:40 EST) 4-14-06
I was hoping this article would list the flower species mentioned in the movie. Anyone obsessive enough to do so? — Pengo 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)- Wildroot ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adaptation./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King ( talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Adaptation. →
Adaptation (film) —
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Adaptation (film) → Adaptation. – Original title is with “.”. -- 79.139.241.21 ( talk) 14:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlie's not agoraphobic. If he was he'd be afraid of going out of his house, but he's out of his house plenty. Uncomfortable around people, yes. Agoraphobic, no. Wikipediman23 ( talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Since for some reason I can freely edit any part of this article but the "intro" section, I have to leave a comment rather than exercise the WP dictum, "Be bold", and just fix it.
I don't wish for anybody to take this as an insult, but the intro needs refinement. First example: the reference to Charlie's "difficult struggle". A "struggle" is inherently "difficult". The word "difficult" is clearly redundant and should simply be removed.
The second example is not as egregious, but merely clumsy: "invented events". In this case, there is a clearly a need for a way to express that the events are manufactured, fictitious, or not actually part of the book the movie "purports" to be an adaptation of. Surely, one could substitute something along the lines of "contrived events" or even merely "contrivances", or...ANYTHING else that doesn't use the fragment "vent" in a word to modify another word that also uses "vent." It reads like a middle school essay. "His invented invention eventually vented the ventilation vents." "Invented events" isn't actually wrong, just unnecessarily clunky.
"Fictional", "contrived", "figmentary", "artificial" could all be considered superior to "invented". Or, if one were truly insistent on "invented", then why not "invented situations"?
Not every article has to be a gem of prose, but I think we should expect better than this. Forgive me is this comment seems inappropriately critical, it's not meant to be an attack, but I don't know how else to express this. If anyone thinks this is too harsh, I apologize in advance. Jefferson1957 ( talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As is clear from the earlier discussions, the actual title of the movie is Adaptation. with a period. I hold it to be self-evident that that the WP article title should therefore include the period.
In the earlier discussions, most of the debate was whether the title should be simply Adaptation. with a period, or whether it should be Adaptation (film) (or Adaptation (movie)) with a disambiguator. It was argued that most people will not notice the period in the title and therefore Adaptation. would be misleading. I say that this is correct, but the logical conclusion is that the title should be Adaptation. (film) (with the period and the disambiguator). It does not matter if there are no other articles titled using Adaptation. and a period; a disambiguator can also be used if there are articles with a similar but not identical basic title.
In the last discussion, someone cited the Manual of Style where it says that Wikipedia does not respect "decorative punctuation" in trademarks. Fine, but that's trademarks. Here we're talking about a title. And one obvious example where WP does retain "decorative punctuation" in a title is the articles M*A*S*H and M*A*S*H (TV series). Which is good, because that's the correct title of the TV series. -- 50.100.191.11 ( talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
On another point, the article itself currently refers to the movie as Adaptation. in the lead sentence but then switches back and forth between that and plain Adaptation in the body and infobox. Whatever decision is made about the article title, this needs to be cleaned up, and covered in the lead. If plain Adaptation is to be used, then the lead should say something like
and the places using a period should be changed. Or if the period is to be used throughout, then the lead should say something like
I would change it myself, but let's see if we can get consensus on which way. -- 50.100.191.11 ( talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Authors: I think that due to the addition of so much fictitious material regarding her "affair" and "drug use", that Ms Orleans' reception to the filmed adaptation of her book would be relevant. Was she involved with the adaptation process? If not, did she know what turn the film took regarding her fictional personal life prior to its release? And finally, what did she think of the finished product? Thanks for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In the "Production" section it says: "The idea to do a film adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief dates back to 1994.[9] Fox 2000 purchased the film rights in 1997,[10] ..." However the entry about the book itself, "The Orchid Thief", says that the book was only published in 1998, and the article it was based upon - published in 1995. I've looked at the respective references, one article from Dec 1999 says that the book was optioned "two years ago", the other from Aug 2002 says the movie "took eight years to bring to the screen". Isn't it possible that these are just rough estimates?... Anyway, if I am wrong and the film rights were indeed purchased before the article was ever published, and if Kaufman started writing the script before the book was ever published, I think it should be mentioned specifically, otherwise it is somewhat confusing. Tomg440 ( talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't include the period at the end of the film title, as this is stylization. (Yes, the use of unconventional punctuation is stylization.)
Stylization disrupts prose and we do not slavishly recreate it in articles, especially when it's not reflected by sources (this isn't).
Where stylization is significant or notable it can be mentioned in parentheses or footnote ("Stylized as..."). See MOS:TMSTYLE. In this case the stylization is so trivial it's not worth pointing out. Popcornfud ( talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adaptation (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Adaptation (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Should this page not be titled Adaptation., and not redirected to Adaptation (movie) (no period)?
To fit with Wikipedia style, this page should remain at Adaptation (movie) and Adaptation. should be deleted. Wikipedia pages don't use periods normally. And the page Adaptation is a disambiguation page. Amelia Hunt 23:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
I now understand that there is a period in the actual movie title, so agree that the page title should reflect that. I support the proposed move. Amelia Hunt 17:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the period isn't for looks but an actual part of the title. Because of confusion on my part and the way things happened (I originally put Adaptation. up for rfd; per Netholic's suggestion I moved it to a page move) so please make sureyou voice your opinion on the WP:RM#Adaptation_.28movie.29_.26rarr.3B_Adaptation. vote since it's under way. Cburnett 20:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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.
Actual movie name is "Adaptation." [with a trailing full stop] and I want to move
Adaptation (movie) to
Adaptation. as well as saving the history.
Adaptation. is a redirect to
Adaptation (movie) and I think they should be swapped. As per Netholic's suggestion on the rfd page (
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#January_8 RFD has been removed), I bring the request here. My original intention was delete
Adaptation. and then move it.
Again on why. Adaptation (movie) is technically the wrong title since "Adaptation" is not the actual movie name but rather "Adaptation.". This point is why I think the content and history should be moved to the correct page (i.e., Adaptation.) and make Adaptation (movie) a redirect to Adaptation..
As for confusion between "Adaptation" and "Adaptation." (raised on the rfd page) I think a short note can be added to the tops. And there's still
Adaptation (movie) to point to the correct article in case someone tries to add an article of a movie entitled "Adaptation" who is unaware the actual title is "Adaptation." So either move the page or delete the redirect that is
Adaptation. (RFD has been removed). I'll be content if either happens so that the content about the movie appears under the correct article title.
Cburnett 05:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Up through here I have: 11 support, 6 oppose. Nearly 2 to 1 in favor. When exactly do we qualify it as "a consensus"? Cburnett 00:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again? Where is the archived discussion? This was voted on a couple of months ago. — Michael Z. 2005-04-27 23:26 Z
I wonder what would happen if someone were to officially name their new movie with a trailing space character — or let’s say with a newline character in the middle, I mean, why not? The Wikipedia article could look something like the following:
But that’s not the end of the fun. For example, for your next movie title, why not add a trailing paragraph separator instead of a newline character? It gets even more interesting when you start to consider the full range of control characters: of course, BEL immediately comes to mind, but I think the ultimate annoying movie title would be one that contained a NUL character.
If you think I’m being silly, please consider the fact that punctuation characters like periods and commas are the control characters of English. Including disruptive control characters in names is very confusing, and I think there is a limit to what kind of name games Wikipedia should honor at the cost of typographical clarity. Ending a movie title with a full stop for no reason crosses the line in my book. It’s just pointless typographical clutter.
— Daniel Brockman 11:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the line: "In the film, Kaufman represents McKee as the deus ex machina, as he gives Charlie the solution to his problematic situation." In the film Adaptation, Robert McKee was introduced very early in the story. His expertise with scripts was also introduced early, and it was mention ed that McKee and Charlie would both be in New York at the same time. Because his appearance was fully explained, he is not a deus ex machina. Furthermore, his advice does not resolve a conflict at all. It causes Charlie to seek out his brother's help, which actually complicates the plot. However, the alligator that comes out of no where to eat John Laroche at the end, THAT is a deus ex machina. - Luke (4:40 EST) 4-14-06
I was hoping this article would list the flower species mentioned in the movie. Anyone obsessive enough to do so? — Pengo 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)- Wildroot ( talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adaptation./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King ( talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Adaptation. →
Adaptation (film) —
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Adaptation (film) → Adaptation. – Original title is with “.”. -- 79.139.241.21 ( talk) 14:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlie's not agoraphobic. If he was he'd be afraid of going out of his house, but he's out of his house plenty. Uncomfortable around people, yes. Agoraphobic, no. Wikipediman23 ( talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Since for some reason I can freely edit any part of this article but the "intro" section, I have to leave a comment rather than exercise the WP dictum, "Be bold", and just fix it.
I don't wish for anybody to take this as an insult, but the intro needs refinement. First example: the reference to Charlie's "difficult struggle". A "struggle" is inherently "difficult". The word "difficult" is clearly redundant and should simply be removed.
The second example is not as egregious, but merely clumsy: "invented events". In this case, there is a clearly a need for a way to express that the events are manufactured, fictitious, or not actually part of the book the movie "purports" to be an adaptation of. Surely, one could substitute something along the lines of "contrived events" or even merely "contrivances", or...ANYTHING else that doesn't use the fragment "vent" in a word to modify another word that also uses "vent." It reads like a middle school essay. "His invented invention eventually vented the ventilation vents." "Invented events" isn't actually wrong, just unnecessarily clunky.
"Fictional", "contrived", "figmentary", "artificial" could all be considered superior to "invented". Or, if one were truly insistent on "invented", then why not "invented situations"?
Not every article has to be a gem of prose, but I think we should expect better than this. Forgive me is this comment seems inappropriately critical, it's not meant to be an attack, but I don't know how else to express this. If anyone thinks this is too harsh, I apologize in advance. Jefferson1957 ( talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As is clear from the earlier discussions, the actual title of the movie is Adaptation. with a period. I hold it to be self-evident that that the WP article title should therefore include the period.
In the earlier discussions, most of the debate was whether the title should be simply Adaptation. with a period, or whether it should be Adaptation (film) (or Adaptation (movie)) with a disambiguator. It was argued that most people will not notice the period in the title and therefore Adaptation. would be misleading. I say that this is correct, but the logical conclusion is that the title should be Adaptation. (film) (with the period and the disambiguator). It does not matter if there are no other articles titled using Adaptation. and a period; a disambiguator can also be used if there are articles with a similar but not identical basic title.
In the last discussion, someone cited the Manual of Style where it says that Wikipedia does not respect "decorative punctuation" in trademarks. Fine, but that's trademarks. Here we're talking about a title. And one obvious example where WP does retain "decorative punctuation" in a title is the articles M*A*S*H and M*A*S*H (TV series). Which is good, because that's the correct title of the TV series. -- 50.100.191.11 ( talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
On another point, the article itself currently refers to the movie as Adaptation. in the lead sentence but then switches back and forth between that and plain Adaptation in the body and infobox. Whatever decision is made about the article title, this needs to be cleaned up, and covered in the lead. If plain Adaptation is to be used, then the lead should say something like
and the places using a period should be changed. Or if the period is to be used throughout, then the lead should say something like
I would change it myself, but let's see if we can get consensus on which way. -- 50.100.191.11 ( talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Authors: I think that due to the addition of so much fictitious material regarding her "affair" and "drug use", that Ms Orleans' reception to the filmed adaptation of her book would be relevant. Was she involved with the adaptation process? If not, did she know what turn the film took regarding her fictional personal life prior to its release? And finally, what did she think of the finished product? Thanks for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
In the "Production" section it says: "The idea to do a film adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief dates back to 1994.[9] Fox 2000 purchased the film rights in 1997,[10] ..." However the entry about the book itself, "The Orchid Thief", says that the book was only published in 1998, and the article it was based upon - published in 1995. I've looked at the respective references, one article from Dec 1999 says that the book was optioned "two years ago", the other from Aug 2002 says the movie "took eight years to bring to the screen". Isn't it possible that these are just rough estimates?... Anyway, if I am wrong and the film rights were indeed purchased before the article was ever published, and if Kaufman started writing the script before the book was ever published, I think it should be mentioned specifically, otherwise it is somewhat confusing. Tomg440 ( talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't include the period at the end of the film title, as this is stylization. (Yes, the use of unconventional punctuation is stylization.)
Stylization disrupts prose and we do not slavishly recreate it in articles, especially when it's not reflected by sources (this isn't).
Where stylization is significant or notable it can be mentioned in parentheses or footnote ("Stylized as..."). See MOS:TMSTYLE. In this case the stylization is so trivial it's not worth pointing out. Popcornfud ( talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)