Talk:Nollywood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving the page to Cinema of Nigeria.[edit]

Hello, the Nigerian Cinema does not now own the patent to call themselves Nollywood. I want to recommend merging this page to Cinema of Nigeria. So this page can be used for the company that holds the patent for the term "Nollywood". A section on both pages can inform about the loss of patent and at the start of the page it can say "formerly Nollywood was used to refer to Nigerian Cinema" and it can redirect to the page.

RahlikBrasson (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first question is: who owns this patent, what is this patent for, and is it notable ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am sorry I want to make a correction it was a trademark and not a patent. The trademark of Nollywood is owned by Nicholas Sparks. Yes, I believe the current holder of Nollywood is notable enough. [1]
[2]. The acquiring of the trademark which left the Nigerien Film Industry nameless. This has been widely covered in the main stream media. Therefore there are many references to prove the notability.
RahlikBrasson (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said this has been "widely covered in the main stream media" yet there are hardly any reliable sources to show this. Can you please show where this is covered in the news, not PR releases? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am doubtful that the person holding the trademark, Nicholas Opara (not Nicholas Sparks), is notable himself, considering the severe lack of information on him that is available. Also, despite you stating that this event been widely covered in mainstream media, I'm having trouble finding sources that pass WP:RS. Really, I can barely find what exactly the Nollywood trademark is currently being used for in the United Stats: I did find the following:
I'm not sure what the exact current context of the usage is or exactly what the article should be about, as I notice the article talks about film in Ghana too. The term may be trademarked but common usage is still centered around the Nigerian film industry. At this point, I don't see a reason that the article itself should be devoted to what the trademark in the United Stats refers to because I cannot sufficiently prove it's notability and I don't think it has enough weight to warrant a section. I am personally not well-versed enough to say if the contents should be merged into Cinema of Nigeria, which I suspect would end up encompassing all of film in Nigeria, including what cinema was in the country before Nollywood and what it is after Nollywood, should the article be sufficiently expanded. I'm suggesting, perhaps, that Nollywood is possibly akin to say Classical Hollywood cinema and Cinema of Nollywood is more Cinema of United States.
I also notified WikiProjects Film and Nigeria of this discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with TenTonParasol here. There is no need to move this article. Wikipedia:Article titles says to base article titles on what is used in reliable English-language sources. It appears that this particular use is the most common use. If there is any basis for an article about the trademark under Nicholas Opara, that would be a secondary topic with an disambiguation term, such as Nollywood (U.S. trademark), where this topic would remain the primary one. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you all for replying. Are these good enough to prove its notability [8], [9], [10]. It seems like wikipedia has a standard process for this, shouldnt we follow the same? Examples where the company/trademarked name is listed first and then the verb form is used as disambiguation term: Google, Xerox etc. Intellectual property rules require that the trademarked term be referenced as used as the primary term to avoid confusion and claims of infringement. Example: Google as a company and trademark and common use (to google something). Thank You RahlikBrasson (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policy at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that a topic is primary for a term with respect to usage and/or long-term significance, and broad-concept articles can be primary topics. In addition, WP:COMMONTERM says, "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." The film industry is the appropriate primary topic here. We would not move apple because of "Apple" being trademarked by Apple Inc. Since this appears to be a legal issue, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation here for an answer. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of Google and Xerox, the verb usage and (in the case of Google) other usages derive from the trademark, not the other way around. This is why the trademark usage is the primary topic. This is not the case here. Though coined in 2002, the term referring to the industry appears to be much older than the trademark, which states first use in business in 2002. Despite term in reference to the trademark has been in use since 2002 and has been trademarked since 2013, there is no evidence beyond the seven or so articles between us that it's being used to refer to something other than the film industry. I don't know anything about intellectual property rights, but if it required that all trademarked items refer to trademarked first, then as Erik points out we'd need to move Apple Inc. to apple, despite the fruit being the more common usage. One of the links you've provided, actually, despite my doubts about how WP:RS it is, counteracts your very argument. Additionally, it takes more than four articles, most of which are of dubious WP:RS at best, plus four links that simply note the trademark occurring without offering commentary (these four links also provide different dates, iirc, I'll have to look again later) to establish notability. Despite one of the articles yiu provided saying that it has caused worry within the Nollywood film industry in mainstream Nigeria media, a cursory search of the websites of Nigeria-based newspapers turns up nothing of the sort. I'd be more confident adding a mention in this article if these oft-mentioned but still unseen mainstream articles turn up. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who called it Nollywood first, Matt Steinglass or Norimitsu Onishi[edit]

During my research into the number of Nollywood films ever produced, I came across this article by British Council that negates the identity of the person that coined the word "Nollywood" here. The BC article says its "Norimitsu Onishi", but this article says "Matt Steinglass". Could you look into it @Jamie Tubers:? Darreg (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lol, it seems Nollywood controversies never end. Well, if we have two reliable sources saying two different things, we will just include both information in the article, per WP:NPOV, or what do you think?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you. You can make the edit in the article. Darreg (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the NYT articles was published first? If the September 2002 article was published before the other article, then it will make more sense to add the September article before the other. If this is the case, then the two sentences can be re-written. Here's an example: The origin of the term "Nollywood" remains unclear. Charles Igwe noted that the name was first used by Norimitsu Onishi in a September 2002 article by The New York Times. Matt Steinglass also used the name to describe Nigerian cinema in a 2002 article he wrote for the New York Times. Conversely, The origin of the term "Nollywood" remains unclear. Jonathan Haynes traced the earliest usage of the word to a 2002 article by Matt Steinglass in The New York Times, where it was used to describe Nigerian cinema. Charles Igwe noted that Norimitsu Onishi also used the name in a September 2002 article he wrote for the New York Times. This is just a suggestion I came up with. You guys don't need to agree with me on this. I personally feel that the current wording in the article is a bit contradictory.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is yesterday, I shouldn't have edited Wiki at all because my schedule was tight, but I couldn't stand allowing the article contain info that wasn't completely in cognizance with what was online, that was why I hurriedly included that sentence. You're free to improve the wording. I don't think I can do that tonight. I agree with you that the wording is contradictory. Your version sounds better. Darreg (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Yoruba-language cinema'?[edit]

'The Yoruba-language cinema is one of the most impactful movie genres of Nigerian cinema, with most of its producers and actors based in the Western region of Nigeria.'

As I have pointed out in the hidden text in the article as well, most of the films listed in the paragraph supposedly dealing with 'Yoruba-language cinema' are, judging from their Wikipedia pages and their titles, in English and not in Yoruba. The linguistic situation doesn't seem to be different from that of Igbo cinema described in the preceding paragraph. These films may be 'Yoruba cinema' in some ethnic sense, but apparently not Yoruba-language cinema. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nollywood&oldid=1202890289"