Talk:Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film)

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

Requested move 21 January 2023[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 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) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret (film) → Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film) – Per the official website, trailer, and poster/logo. Similarly, the Wikipedia page for the book adaptation, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret., uses a period. Additionally, the title includes two other instances of punctuation——a question mark (?) and a comma (,). So, it would only make sense for there to also be a period. FilmVoyage (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Allen 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 1 April 2023[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 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: moved. Per consensus. Although there are argument for the current title as the common name, the supporting arguments for common sense and consistency with the source material's title, already has a more established presence on wiki, are more compelling. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret (film) → Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film) – Read below MissTaylorW (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. — As mentioned in January by FilmVoyage, I support this move to use the WP:OFFICIAL title of the movie. (1) According to the poster on this very article, there is a period at the end. If you oppose this move, please explain why we should ignore the giant period on the poster. (2) The Wikipedia article for the book, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret., includes a period at the end. (3) The official trailer from Lionsgate includes one.[1] (4) I support the move to use the film’s WP:OFFICIAL title as the article title. MissTaylorW (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Mike Allen and I argued at the RM a couple months ago. We don't necessarily use the "official" style. Independent sources most commonly don't include the period in the name (excluding, of course, when it's at the end of a sentence that would otherwise have a period anyway). (As for the article about the book, I would likely support a renaming of that too.) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why are you okay with the comma and question mark, but not the period? There's a thematic reason for the period to be there. Also, Shazam! includes punctuation at the end. It just makes sense to use WP:OFFICIAL instead of the incorrect title. Let's see what others have to say. MissTaylorW (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In my view, sources generally use the question mark and comma when writing about the film, so the article should use them too. But yes, let's see what others have to say. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for accuracy and per the title of the book. If the period is left off what's left is one sentence followed by a dangling sentence. The film's title is made up of two sentences, which should be reflected in Wikipedia per proper English. Randy Kryn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 5 April 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Once again, as per the previous topic discussion, I am in favor of using the WP:OFFICIAL title opposed to the incorrect one. Various official sources for the movie use the period, and it completes two seperate sentences. FilmVoyage (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC) The RM initiator has been identified as a sock of FilmVoyage (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FilmVoyage). – Jerium (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC) – No hard evidence of this, the SPI is essentially closed, and the nom has been issued a gentle warning, so striking is unwarranted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is already the WP:COMMONNAME via the sources in the page primarily devoid the use of the full stop punctuation. Jerium (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles go by what is recognizable in English sources, that is the WP:CRITERIA. Jerium (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Randy Kryn is correct. Looks pretty stupid without full punctuation. And any source, reliable or Wikipedia, looks pretty stupid if the full title with full punctuation isn't rendered faithfully. The book title is faithfully rendered; so should the film title be rendered faithfully. Sources that do not render such titles as they are meant to be seen by the public are not truly "reliable". Makes you wonder what else they left out. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply calling something "stupid" is an opinion and disregarding sources is contrary to WP:AT. Jerium (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A case could be made that all rationales are opinions, and I'm only disregarding sources that do not appear to be "reliable", decidedly not contrary to policy. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONSENSE covers this, as does site consistency (WP:CONSISTENT). The article on the book of the same name already uses the two sentences properly rendered for its title, including the period. This is mirrored in the film's poster (I know, that's only a styling choice, but on it the period is accented by outsizing it - an obvious hint from the production company concerning the title of their film). Site consistency would require that one or the other be used, not both. And in the spirit of Paine Ellsworth's comment, the less stupid looking one which is already the title of the novel's page better serves as the title of the twinned encyclopedic articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: for a more certain consensus, given the recent revelation of possible meat socking. – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sock-puppet investigation has been closed and there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing. So this is a gentle reminder that when consensus has formed and when resolution is found, a move request can be closed at any time after being relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, Randy Kryn, FilmVoyage, LancedSoul and P.I. Ellsworth. The main title header of Wikipedia entry for the book contains the period, the book cover contains the period, the film poster contains the period, the film trailer contains the period and the film's on-screen credits contain the period. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzRzojHC3iE
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.

Poster[edit]

The current poster featured is the teaser poster. This one, with a billing block, should be used instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks Mike Allen 17:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box office bomb[edit]

@2A00:23C6:4102:EC01:306A:B4E5:CBEA:8222: (or whatever IP you're currently using) The WP:BURDEN was on you to provide a source to this edit. But instead you just arbitrarily write "making it a box office bomb" in the lead with no context and no source. Three times. We could add in the release section, "Deadline Hollywood reported that the film "fell greatly short at the box office", opening at $6.8 million, bellow the $7–$9 million Lionsgate was anticipating" citing this article. Mike Allen 00:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Are_You_There_God%3F_It%27s_Me,_Margaret._(film)&oldid=1198937601"