Talk:Death at a Funeral

This disambiguation page 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

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Two films of the same name

The 2007 British film was originally at Death at a Funeral. There is a 2010 remake found at Death at a Funeral (2010 film) which, judging from page views, is being sought out more than the 2007 film. I moved the 2007 film to Death at a Funeral (2007 film) and redirected Death at a Funeral to Death at a Funeral (2010 film) (applying the principle of least astonishment) with a hatnote pointing to Death at a Funeral (2007 film). Readers are seeking out the 2010 film far more than the 2007 film, so this setup will accommodate them. After the remake comes out both in theaters and on home video, article traffic will likely die down, and we can convert Death at a Funeral into a disambiguation page listing both films, akin to The Day the Earth Stood Still. Erik (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a note on the 2007 film page giving a link to the new American film. That is enough. The British film was the original and is the more renowned (at least until the 2010 film finishes its run at the cinema). I've reverted this page to the 2007 film. I'm sure most sane people will agree with me. Depor23 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add another point. More readers seeking out a certain article does not necessarily mean it should be redirected to that one. Take Avatar, for example. The article for the original meaning of the word is where Avatar redirects. This seems to be Wiki's policy. Therefore, Death at a Funeral should always redirect to the 2007 film. If it comes out that the 2010 film is a massive success, then MAYBE we can talk about having a general disambiguation page. Even that would probably be against Wiki's customs as Avatar (2009 film) was the biggest film of all time (not adjusted for inflation, just monetary gross) yet there is no disambiguation page for Avatar. Depor23 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic is not always the original meaning. For example, the film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is based on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (novel), but it claims the slot of primary topic. It is not appropriate to claim that the 2007 film is "the more renowned" where we can see from the page views that more people are looking for the 2010 film. The Avatar example does not apply here. "Death at a Funeral" (the 2007 film) was only primary in the sense of being the only article with that title. Now there is another film called "Death at a Funeral", and in the end, both will share space on a disambiguation page like at The Day the Earth Stood Still. In the meantime, though, the 2010 film is impending, and we always see higher traffic for such new films. Thus, per WP:ASTONISH, we put the 2010 film in closer reach where the 2007 film is just one click away. When the 2010 film completes its theatrical run, we'll do the disambiguation page. Erik (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, the original film is by no means a classic, Google Books shows nothing significant, same for Google Scholar. Neither has it won any significant awards. I am not suggesting that this film is little-known, but it does not have a strong claim to being a primary topic over the remake. We could make a disambiguation page that lists both films and lets the reader choose, but this means an additional click-through for the majority of readers looking for the 2010 film. We should recognize that the 2010 film will have more traffic and apply WP:ASTONISH until a later date when both films recede into history. For what it's worth, all links on Wikipedia about either film have already specified the disambiguation. It is a matter of "Death of a Funeral" being searched for, and the page views indicate putting the 2010 film up front for the short run. Erik (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer that Death at a Funeral be a disambiguation page from the beginning. If traffic to the 2010 film was ten-fold what it is for the 2007 film, it would be a no-brainer. As it stands, the 2010 film receives only about double the traffic of the 2007 film. Either way, since we're not a paper encyclopedia and have the technical ability to adjust such things, I see no issue with redirect pointing to the new film during the theatrical run and then being changed afterwards but my preference is for a DAB page immediately. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the (year film) suffix for both films, and Death at a Funeral as a disambig page. If the 2010 film turns out to be an epoch-defining, block-busting masterpiece for the ages, then we can talk about making it the main article. (And I'm not sure the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang example is good-- I question whether the film should be the primary article without a "(film)" prefix.) Dekkappai (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can do the disambiguation page for two, then. I was just hoping to add a temporary convenience for the 2010 film article. Never considered it to be a primary topic for the long term. It's very likely that the retrospective attention to these topics will be pretty even. As for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, see discussion here. I'm also mulling over how to approach The Karate Kid with its remake The Karate Kid (2010 film), which will probably have a decent splash at the box office. No idea if it could overtake the 1980s nostalgia of the original film, though. Erik (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't like using page views to determine article names-- it's an extremely subjective, frustratingly changeable way of doing things... But I'm not one to get very excited about what something is called or how it's spelled. Dekkappai (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of either film until now, so for me the disambig page works fine! I guess there's a lot of non-technical readers of WP (eg don't know that film titles are disambig'd by the year, etc), so it's unwise to assume they'd look for Film Title (year) on their first search. Lugnuts (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black comedy

My previous edit tried to form a parallelism between the two movies, British Black Comedy vs Black American Comedy, because I found it interesting that the British version was called a 'black comedy', and the American version has a primarily African American cast so could possibly be called a 'Black comedy' (or a 'Black black comedy'). User:Rje removed this edit, saying "we're not going down the route of defining a production by the skin colour of most of its cast." I have no problem with this removal (because I am aware that it could be interpreted as an incendiary statement), but would like to point out that we have already gone down this route with Black sitcom, which is an actual wikipedia article that fits this situation, namely "a production [named] by the skin colour of most of its cast (I noticed that article before making my previous revision because I looked at Black comedy, which pointed me to Black sitcom). gringer (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, when looking through the revision history of the article, it looks like many previous revisions involved either an addition or revert of the word black from the line about the 2010 film gringer (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the parallel, I am just not wild about defining a production along such lines. Black sitcom is a well-sourced article that covers a genre identified by a number of reputable external sources, but exceedingly few of the sitcoms listed actually link back to it. Without such credible references in this instance, I feel that a pun is a poor excuse for bringing race into it. This is a comedy that happens to have a predominantly African-American cast, just as, say, Seinfeld had a predominantly Jewish cast, for us to define either by that one fact seems to me to be reductive and unnecessary–especially as no reputable commentators appear to be doing so. I certainly don't mean to force the issue if people feel that I'm in the wrong, I just think there are better ways of defining a film than by the race/ethnicity/gender of the cast. Rje (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Rje. There is no such genre of film—at least nothing well defined—to begin with and describing the film in those terms would then not be beneficial to the reader in understanding the subject. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]