Talk:Murder in Reverse

Requested move 12 November 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 21:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Murder in Reverse → Murder in Reverse? – The correct title for this film includes a question mark at the end - this is shown definitively in the opening credits (I have a screen shot, but don't how to upload it for others to see). BFI (a reliable source) and IMDb (which is not) include the question mark. The infobox poster image does not include the question mark, but incorrect film titling on posters is a common error, as demonstrated by several examples in other WP film articles. The article has had the title without a question mark for 12 years, but an error being long-standing is not an argument for not correcting it. The question mark is important to the plot because the film concludes by posing to a room of eminent lawyers the question of whether a man can be sentenced a second time for a murder for which has already served the prison sentence. Masato.harada (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly Masato.harada, i'll say that I have some understanding why you take that view, however stating the current title as an "error" is merely your own opinion (at least unless determined otherwise). With regards to determining which title should be used, WP:MOSFILM refers to assessing a film's entry at the BBFC if the title is in doubt, and the entry here does not have the question mark. I have recently expanded the article using historic newspapers and I can't see period coverage referring to the film with a question mark. Having recently watched the film, I understand the statement regarding it's somewhat open-endedness and the question being asked, however I take the view that references to the title with the question mark relate moreso to publicity and PR.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. I too have a screen shot of the title card from the credits and it clearly has a ?. Multiple citations of the wrong title mean nothing if they are only propagation of the same error. This is not a matter of opinion. Spycoops (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Even the original story was entitled “Query”. Spycoops (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your POV, but see WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, which says "Although citing sources is an important part of editing Wikipedia, there is no need to cite information that is already obvious." Surely the opening credits, which are part of the film, are definitive and their own citation, and they say the title of the film of is "Murder in Reverse?", and not whatever erroneous transcriptions have been made by later parties who were not the creator of the film? Masato.harada (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

We also have WP:COMMONNAME and i'd suggest there are far more references to the film's title without the question mark than those that present it (the latter I have not yet seen in any, or least many references outside those you have mentioned). There is a precedent for having symbols in an article title, for instance the film mother!, although in that case there is no dispute that is the official and also most recognisable title. I would not object to the question mark variant being a redirect, with a suitable reference in the lead saying "also known as.." or something along those lines, but I am concerned, based on my input so far, if the question mark variant became the title. Maybe other editor input would have a fresh perspective, or maybe not. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The main title header of a film's entry in English Wikipedia should depict the title as it appears in the film's on-screen credits. Film titles with question marks is not an unusual occurrence as confirmed at Movies titles that end in question marks. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bungle. Wikipedia's policy is to use the WP:COMMONNAME, not self-published formatting. If most independent sources don't include the question mark, we shouldn't either. Extra punctuation also makes titles confusing in running prose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Books search results here for the first four pages of results show the title without the question mark. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Image removal

@Tobyhoward, just wondered what you mean in your edit summary regarding: Deleted image, irrelevant to this film, of "William Hartnell assessing film cuttings with a cinema manager", particularly the feeling of irrelevance? Granted, i'd much rather we had better images, such as during filming itself, backstage etc, although highly unlikely for something from 1945. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bungle, my feeling was that the image was not directly relevant to the film. It's certainly a nice image (and I hadn't seen it before) and maybe it would fit on William Hartnell's article, but I don't think it adds anything to the understanding/appreciation of the film in this article, so it was hard to see a justification for being there. Tobyhoward (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any other image, I felt it wasn't negatively impacting the article, and was something a little different. Where we may have had something better, it wouldn't really be considered a net benefit, granted, but equally it's not really causing an issue either. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I take your point. While I don't think the photo negatively impacts, I do think it is "random" in the sense that other than one of the two people in it being W.H., it appears to have no connection with the film (unless I am missing something). I agree that it is not a huge issue though, and we have probably discussed it enough, so if you think it should return, please go ahead. Tobyhoward (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I assumed you had checked the original source, but perhaps not? The image is when Hartnell made a personal appearance at the showing of the film in a cinema, while the photo shows him assessing the actual film's reel during that personal appearance. It wasn't just a random photo of one of the actor's in an unrelated setting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agggh. My bad entirely. I apologise. While I had checked the photo's page to see what the file status was, I didn't spot the description under the caption which clearly states it was a personal appearance at a showing of the film. So yes of course it is relevant. I have put it back. Sorry to have wasted your time! Tobyhoward (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, don't worry about it. I was more just perplexed that you considered it "irrelevant", although the caption could have been clearer, which I see you have since amended. I know it doesn't add anything to the understanding of the film itself, though it is also fairly unusual! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)