Talk:Jour de fête

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: French

	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 French cinema task force.

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 04:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 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: Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jour de Fête → Jour de fête – Correct capitalization for French title. Also used in the English speaking world Criterion BFI. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current capitalization is correct and more common in the English-speaking world. — Film Fan 11:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not, in either case. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Using correct capitalisation for the language in question is implied in the examples at WP:NCFILM#Foreign-language films and stated in other similar style guidelines such as WP:OPERATITLE. — AjaxSmack 23:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Composition titles. The claim above that "the current capitalization is ... more common in the English-speaking world" is not borne out by a Google Books search [1]; the frequency is low to begin with, and the usage is mixed. Sources that capitalize this as "Fête" are almost exclusively news sites, following the AP Stylebook, which overcapitalizes, favoring treating all titles the same way rather than acknowledging any differences between languages (it's more expedient for journalists under tight deadlines to not have to look up something about French or whatever). WP does not care what journalism sites prefer when it comes to style matters, as they are not reliable for academic style questions; WP is not journalism, is not written in news style, and has its own style guide which says to use French capitalization rules for French titles (more precisely, it says to follow the capitalization of the original). There has been some confusion about this here and there because MoS's advice on titles of work has long been scattered across several pages. I started normalizing them a couple of years ago, but put that on a back burner for a long time. Have picked it up a little again. The use of French caps rules in French titles, German rules in German, etc. was stated in one place but not another, and illustrated without explanation at a third. For a detailed explanation of French, German, Italian, Latin, etc. titling rules in English academic writing, see New Hart's Rules (a.k.a. Oxford Style Manual) in the section on the titles of musical tions, which goes into it in great detail. MOS does not, because it's more practical for us, per WP:CREEP, to just use the title as-published, or for historical works, to use what the majority of reliable sources on such works, in English, prefer. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – French title should obey French spelling, otherwise you might as well remove diacritics or use a translation. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 8 August 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 Jour de fête. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070609165325/http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/jourdefete.htm to http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/jourdefete.htm

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) 09:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not "unclear"[edit]

It's not "unclear" which version is which. There are three different versions of the film:

The b/w version released in 1949.
The 1964 version where Tati added a framing narrative of a painter who adds paint by hand to individual image parts of particular shots in the film by painting on the filmstrip.
The 1995 restored living-color version co-funded by German ZDF. ZDF had actually gone back into the vaults and took the three different Thomsoncolor strips (red, green, blue) and printed them according to 1990s standards, like a classical Technicolor film.

It's pretty obvious at just a glance which version you're looking at. Here's a source with comparison shots of all three versions, plus an even newer BD telecine of the 1995 version: [2] --2003:EF:1700:B464:F469:E833:7086:4D82 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]