Talk:13th (film)

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema / Government / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

Law Enforcement Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 27 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. — Film Fan 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

13th (film) → 13th – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The hatnote I've added will suffice. — Film Fan 16:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fails second criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. SST flyer 09:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the primary topic, SSTflyer? — Film Fan 11:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 (number). SST flyer 03:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"13th" is quite different from "13", SSTflyer. — Film Fan 12:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:SURPRISE In ictu oculi (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No-one typing in "13th" in the search box would expect to find a semi-obscure documentary film as the result, it should go to the number. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fairly obscure documentary against common term used all over the world. Surely not a serious nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This needs to be fixed: 'The film begins in the hood an audio clip of former President'

The Civil War[edit]

In the film, they acted as if the 13th didn't do anything for African Americans. They acted as if it did nothing when thousands or more people died for such a cause to bring us one step closer to equality today. Somisista (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. 168.91.16.64 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13TH (film) → 13th (film) – Six of the eight external links in the article (excepting its Facebook and IMDb pages) refer to this film with the lowercased ordinal suffix. Fortune, Slate, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and just about every reliable source I've seen—that are not tied to Netflix itself—refer to this film as 13th, not 13TH. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Use of uppercase letters is not justified by the occasional stylization (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Facebook…) or even, possibly, on-screen credits, although the appended poster, which uses uppercase "T" and "H", does not even come close to enlarging those two letters to the same size as the number "13". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the film title officially has a capital TH. For a reason. We don't call "WALL·E" "Wall-E" and just because some publications didn't get the memo doesn't mean we should play ignorant along with them. — Film Fan 00:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the title of the film uses a capital "TH" (as opposed to "th") for a reason; if the article discussed that reason citing reliable sources, that might actually be a good rationale for keeping it where it is. However, in my admittedly brief research into the topic, I saw no such explanation for capitalization.
With regards to the Pixar film, the location of that article seems to be dictated by what the preponderance of reliable sources call it. The article is located at WALL-E, not WALL·E, and while 18 of its cited sources do spell the film as Wall-E, 50 of them fully capitalize it.
Lastly, the English Wikipedia's policy on article titles says, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." I don't want to enumerate that policy's five principal criteria for naming articles (though I find the lowercased ordinal suffix article title better fits them), but I will quote the next section which says, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." So, if the reliable sources that discuss this film refer to it as 13th, then yes, we will "play ignorant along with them." — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, WALL-E is an acronym, so per MOS:TM its title is appropriate. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and Roman. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per nom and Roman, plus WP:MOSCAPS and other miscellaneous policies. To make it short, there is no way 13TH (film) is an acceptable name for the page. ONR (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This film's title is obviously meant to be "13th" and there is no reason to capitalize the TH per WP policy. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:ALLCAPS, "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks." This is further supported by MOS:TMRULES, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one," with examples like Time over TIME and ASUS over Asus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above-cited MOS issues. There is also the fact that the current title resulted from an undiscussed move, so the default outcome should be to revert that move. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 13th (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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DZOQ92zN?url=http://oscar.go.com/nominees to http://oscar.go.com/nominees

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armond White review[edit]

African-American critic Armond White described the film as "politically correct, dull, and cowardly."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/13th-documentary-politically-correct-dull-cowardly/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin7112 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]