Talk:Bande à part (film)

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

Filmed in the Louvre[edit]

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? Theshibboleth 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. Steve Pastor 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"accessible"[edit]

Does accessible in the article mean that it is easy to get a copy of or easy to understand? Theshibboleth 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Influence[edit]

The article says this movie influenced Quentin Tarentino and Hal Hartley. Where is this influence seen? What movies, what scenes? Tarentino's A Band Apart was probably influenced by the film, given the similarity in their names. How did Bertolucci pay homage to the Louvre scene? What scene is it and how was the mise-en-scene similar? Theshibboleth 06:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accessible as in easy to understand by larger audiences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.149.131 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot?[edit]

Does the plot need to be more than a stub?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.241.206 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. Portia1780 (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Madison" scene[edit]

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. Steve Pastor 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). Portia1780 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English or French Title?[edit]

Shouldn't this article use the film's English-language title: Band of Outsiders? This would seem to be suggested by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). --Jeremy Butler 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is an example in that MoS section:
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 first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold.
Bande à part is a 1964 comedy-drama film directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It is released as Band of Outsiders in North America.
Also, there are redirects on the Godard titles I checked. Pepso 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the British DVD is released as Bande à part, that's why we keep the French title.Cop 633 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Obviously, I was too quick with my reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)! I didn't realize that the UK prefers the native title. Indeed, in the US the native title is rarely used--unlike, say, Vivre sa vie, which is seldom referred to as My Life to Live in the US.

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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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. BetacommandBot 02:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bande à part (film) → Band of Outsiders – Proposed change is analogous to such key titles in French cinema as Grand Illusion (film) [not La Grande Illusion], The Rules of the Game [not La Règle du jeu], Children of Paradise [not Les Enfants du paradis], The 400 Blows [not Les Quatre Cents Coups] or Breathless (1960 film) [not À bout de souffle]. There are, needless to say, well-known exceptions: À Nous la Liberté [not Freedom for Us] or Pierrot le Fou [not Pete the Madman], but Bande à part is not one of these exceptions. It is, in fact, listed as Band of Outsiders in such references as IMDb, Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Mick Martin's & Marsha Porter's DVD & Video Guide, Steven H. Scheuer's Movies on TV, Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever, The New York Times Directory of the Film and Encyclopedia Americana. An important aspect in such titling controversies is also DVD release and, regarding the case under discussion, the definitive Criterion edition is titled Band of Outsiders. —Roman Spinner (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the explicit statement in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Examples: "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: Bande à part is a 1964 comedy-drama film directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It is released as Band of Outsiders in North America." This film was released in the UK under its original title. It's listed as such in Halliwell's Film Guide and The Biographical Dictionary of Film. You can also find recent newspaper references e.g. Metro (2008) link, The New York Times (2010) link, Daily Telegraph (2008) link, referring to it by its original title. Plus hundreds of GBooks hits link. Tassedethe (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – 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. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on similar grounds to Tassedethe. The film is far more commonly referred to in English-language sources under its original (French) title. Jheald (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Tassedethe. Only in North America is the English-language title used, so I believe it should remain as is. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not under its French title though; nowhere other than Wikipedia will you see it referred to as Bande à part (film), 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 Bande à part will have to go through the disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the disambig element to the current title is relevant to a move to an English title. Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the naming guidelines is to use the most common film title as the title of the article (as per WP:COMMON), 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 Wikipedia disambiguated title, then we should be consistent with the spirit of the naming guidelines and choose the alternative title. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 be consistent with the spirit of the naming guidelines and qualify it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By strike rate I mean the number of unique visits a page actually gets. Take the page view stats for Band of Outsiders (3873 from the last 90 days) and Bande_à_part_(film) (8766 from the last 90 days). Obviously, visitors to the Band of Outsiders get redirected to Bande à part (film), so in reality the unique visits for Bande à part (film) 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 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. Betty Logan (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small aside. The stats for the Band of Outsiders redirect are separate from the Bande à part (film) stats. See Q3 here. That makes the ratio nearer 70/30. Tassedethe (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: 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: Bande à part (film). The two determinations (title and qualifier) are independent of each other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:COMMONNAME 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 proposed move. —David Levy 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't see the use of a qualifier as a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the quoted text, "problems" refers to reasons why the subject's most common name (without 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 solution to this problem. As the policy indicates, using an alternative common name (provided that it isn't much 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 "Band of Outsiders" outweigh the disadvantages.) —David Levy 13:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted at WP:RETAIN, it can be appropriate to switch from one English variety to another when "a term/spelling carries less ambiguity". An example is Cheque, which was moved from Check (finance) and converted from American English to British English to eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguation.
    However, I'm not convinced that the title "Band of Outsiders" is sufficiently common to justify the proposed move. —David Levy 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Totally agree with Jenks24, and ,therefore, Tassedethe. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 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. —David Levy 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The policy at WP:COMMONNAME speaks of a name being recognizable and natural, 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. --AJHingston (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 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. GRAPPLE X 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What everyone else said, the English name isn't even the most common name here. —Nightstallion 08:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 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 [http://www.amazon.com/Band-Outsiders-Criterion-Collection-Karina/dp/B00007CVS2/ Amazon]. I get 175 (74 deghosted) post-1990 English-language Google Book hits for Godard "Bande à part", 667 (189 deghosted) for Godard "Band of Outsiders". As far as ENGVAR goes, The Independent has eight results for Bande à part, four for Band of Outsiders. 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 La Belle Époque, when French was the international language. Kauffner (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, after careful consideration:
    1. 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 means.
    2. This necessarily also means that there's a consensus against this rename already at WT:Naming conventions (films)! While consensus can change, policy also forbids "local consensuses" of little clumps of editors overriding site-wide guidelines to suit pet peeves, and guidelines strongly frown upon "asking the other parent" to try to change consensus made at one page by re-raising an issue on another. (I imply no bad faith; 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).
    3. 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, WT:Naming conventions (films) participants might say "whatever" and readily agree to change the wording over there, no questions asked. However, the arguments are very weak.
    4. The idea that the film NC applies in the opposite direction (i.e. pro 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 Wikipedia ever give precedence to US interests on such a basis. The US market (including the US DVD market countries, like 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.
    5. Betty Logan's disambiguation-based rationale mixes apples and oranges, and isn't germane.
    6. The idea that this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, as proposed by several, very badly misinterprets the WP:MOS; ENGVAR is about close national ties to a subject 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 non sequitur, as it has no bearing on the case at hand.
    7. As an aside, the argument that ENGVAR couldn't 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 {{Policy}} instead of {{Guideline}} on WP:AT lately; it's not about "chain of command" but "chain of logic". 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.
    8. 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 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. (This is partially in response to the Au Revoir, les Enfants bit below, where an English translation like "Goodbye, Children" would 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))
    9. To address a "support" rationale buried in the section below, what WP:WikiProject Film prefers to do for convenience or as a default or even as a strong preference isn't relevant, again per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 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. WP:FILM does not WP:OWN film articles. I'm actually less sure now that following Criterion Collection is a good idea; someone lower down points out that C.C. is entirely US-centric. 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
    10. Another I missed: WP:Manual of Style/France & French-related: "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. WP:Naming conventions (use English): "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. (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)) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 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. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 the outcome, this RM supersedes earlier RMs. Kauffner (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:Requested moves 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 MOS:ICONS of how to use and not use icons and many of those examples were chosen because they reflected the consensus well, 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 isn't normal procedure for guideline pages to be rewritten willy-nilly to reflect the fact that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS changed something at an article. Quite the opposite. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, pretty much per SMcCandlish's far more eloquent reasoning above. Now what about that Reservoir dogs film ... pablo 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I added my ninth and tenth rationales after Pablo X commented. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which adds another 20% to my oppose. pablo 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I was leaning for retaining 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 well-known around the world by its French title. Due to the microcosm of various 'community pockets', it is hardly surprising that inconsistencies exist, in that the iconic film À bout de souffle article really ought to reside at its French title for the same reason why this should not be moved. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Titles should not be translated for the sake of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominating comments[edit]

  • For moving Bande à part (film) to Band of Outsiders:
    1. There is a collection of French-language film titles which, in addition to the already-listed À Nous la Liberté and Pierrot le Fou, include Au Hasard Balthazar, Au Revoir les Enfants, Belle de Jour, Bob le Flambeur, La Bête Humaine, La Belle Noiseuse, La Chienne, La Chèvre, La Cage aux Folles, La Chinoise, Tous les Matins du Monde 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 Bande à Part. Even discounting all the guides listed above which reference it as Band of Outsiders, WikiProject Film has traditionally used the Criterion collection as an indication for deciding each film's title. If it remains as Bande à Part, it will stand out as the sole title not following this well-established precedent.
    2. As for article titling policy and rules, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related states that in "Wikipedia 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)"., while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states: "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)". It can be argued that, even discounting the IMDb listing, the other six references constitute WP:RELIABLE SOURCES.
    3. Interpreting another rule, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films ("...normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world), 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 WP:RS 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 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.
    4. Using the two familiar examples above, I can point to the American-referenced "Grand Illusion" and "The Rules of the Game", which appear in all British references as "La Grande Illusion" and "La Règle du Jeu" and yet, due apparently to the fact that the English-language titles are equally well-known, appear in Wikipedia's main title headers under those English titles. In fact, as far as British guides such as Halliwell's Film Guide and TimeOut Film Guide are concerned, all the key titles of French cinema, including virtually the entire output of Renoir, Godard and Truffaut are listed under their French titles, although capitalized (Bande à Part, not Bande à part) to reflect English-language orthography. Thus, even though as many English-language references for À Bout de Souffle or Les Enfants du Paradis could probably be found as for Bande à Part, those titles and many such others have not been proposed for moves to their original French titles.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Les Enfants du Paradis probably should be known under its original title, because "Children of Paradise" is a stupid mistranslation -- the Paradis of the title meaning the Upper Circle in a theatre, ie "the Gods", a connotation that "Paradise" in English does not have.
"Band of Outsiders" is another leaden inept prosaic clunking mistranslation, which is another reason not to prefer it. Jheald (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Not to mention that enfant 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, enfant can also, e.g. in the surname l'Enfant, be a specific reference to the Christ Child, not to random kiddos. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A strong argument which deserves to be tested at Talk:Children of Paradise WP:RM. All the pros and cons have already been submitted here. It would be the usual IMDb, Maltin, Scheuer, Martin & Porter, NY Times, Google books, Criterion, etc on one side and Halliwell, TimeOut, Metro, David Thomson, Daily Telegraph, Google books (again), WP:ENGVAR 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.—Roman Spinner (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 bound to follow US marketing considerations. The general policy that the English language Wikipedia 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. --AJHingston (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My apologies for the unclear meaning. The above sentence, enhanced to remove any ambiguity, should state: "I will vote against the change of Children of Paradise to Les Enfants du Paradis, but judging by the tenor of the comments here, there appears to be a sufficient number of votes for the proposal to move Children of Paradise to Les Enfants du Paradis to succeed".
  2. As to your other point regarding the English language Wikipedia 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 French are, of course, no exception, screening, for example, Gone with the Wind as Autant en emporte le vent and The King's Speech as Le Discours d'un roi.
  3. 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 Wikipedia's List of artworks known in English by a foreign title, 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 Au Revoir les Enfants, 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 Ingmar Bergman, Andrzej Wajda, Miklós Jancsó or Yasujirō Ozu have remained in their original form. In his essay on titles, Leslie Halliwell points out the difficulties of many foreign titles (Wild Strawberries, not Smultronstället) and yet, it was Halliwell, along with David Thomson and TimeOut magazine and film guide who have insisted on using French titles for most French films, including those such as Band of Outsiders which have well-known and well-established English-language equivalents.
  4. Although it has been portrayed as an ENGVAR dispute, it's actually a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) 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 Bande à Part is the film's British title and Band of Outsiders is the film's American title, Bande à Part therefore represents British variety of English, while Band of Outsiders represents an American variety of English. I have consulted at least ten guides, which, in addition to those listed in my nomination, include Microsoft Cinemania, Motion Picture Guide and Variety Film Guide, all of which, along with IMDb, use Band of Outsiders. While Encyclopedia Americana also references Band of Outsiders, Encyclopædia Britannica, which does not have a main entry for the film, refers to both titles in its article on French cinema. A perusal of Google Books shows that Band of Outsiders is at least as ingrained in English-language film culture as Bande à Part.
  5. Those who would like to delve further into related topics may be interested in the recent discussion at Talk:Caché (film)#Cache not Hidden, which, in a surprising turnabout, had the British "side" use the English-language title, Hidden (film), while the American "side" preferred the French title, Caché (film). Unlike this discussion, the Caché 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 Talk:La Strada#Upper or Lower Case 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.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're in strong agreement on the WP:ENGVAR thing, then. Some people above were actually raising an ENGVAR spect[er|re], though, which is why I commented on it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia): It's not noteworthy or important that a mainstream movie or opera guide written for Americans or Brits uses English "Title Case Like This" for titles in French; 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 doesn't 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.
This is really the exact same issue as the WP:BIRDS insistence on capitalization of the common/vernacular names of birds, as in "Bald Eagle" (see debate at WT:MOS). 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 authority on the proper 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 choked to death on them, so he got a Guinea Pig and a Dog instead." (That's not an exaggerated argument – those are the recognized common names of all four of those species, and this is exactly what certain tendentious WP:BIRDS editors have done with bird common names, forcing capitalization in literally tens of thousands of articles, despite 7+ years of constant criticism. They've promoted this "convention" elsewhere, too, resulting in a huge mess of capitalization in many non-bird articles.)
The point being, populist books are good sources of information about the facts of their subjects, not about grammar and style even as it applies to those subjects. 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 favo[u]red 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 Wikipedia policy – is that Wikipedia is not a specialist publication, but a generalist encyclopedia, so the preferences of geeky specialist publications, be they film guides or bird guides, are actually less reliable on style matters than Chicago Manual of Style, Hart's Rules and the like, even when it comes to such specialties as film and birds, on which those specialist publications are otherwise probably the most 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. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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 (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 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 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, on one level it doesn't matter at all, since redirects work fine. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shameless plug re: naming[edit]

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 language of the Wikipedia, or ANY encyclopedic source, should EVER do this. The original name is the name, where all others are alternatives; no exceptions. Deriving these name is usually simple enough, too.

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 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...

(btw this movie looks super cute and i've got to get my eyes on it) Despatche (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ingmar Bergman has been shown under its original title and, if referenced, such classics as The Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries would be virtually unrecognizable as Det sjunde inseglet and Smultronstället, respectively. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be expanded and missing a few sections[edit]

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.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Bande à part (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. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC) –  Painius  put'r there  19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Michel Legrand's music for the last(?) time"[edit]

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?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bande_à_part_(film)&oldid=1205689481"