Jump to content

Talk:Trollhunter

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

Unprotected

[edit]

Now that the requested move has been closed, I've lifted all protection from this page. I'm assuming that no-one is going to start changing the page name in the near future, and that all parties will be able to collaborate to update the page text to accurately reflect the history of naming of this film. Of course it will be easy to restore the protection if future problems arise. Franamax (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only joined the discussion after a request at the Film project and have no real investment in the page title, but I'm a bit confused as to how the rename was closed out. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for any of the names (the one that it was moved to wasn't even proposed), so I wouldn't be surprised if several editors don't consider it resolved. On the other hand I do hope the issue is now settled. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Laniala counts as several editors, then you're probably right. And his oppositional argument was nonsensical. But thanks for taking the time to help resolve it. Film Fan (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So nice of you to speak on behalf of everybody else. Are you a mind reader too, now? How do you know that the few supports for «Troll Hunter» would have supported the spelling «Trollhunter»? After all, your move to that title is how you first got reverted, and not by me.
And our/my arguments may have been nonsensical to you, perhaps because as you clearly stated from the second edit your viewpoint wasn't even up for discussion, and thus you had no intention to look beyond your own nose.
Despite what you actually thought you said, you could not prove that the film exists without “The”. You ignored our links showing otherwise, and as Betty Logan even gave links for, the formal registry names in the US and UK includes a “The”.
And if you looked at the foreign title examples I gave they follow the WP:THE guideline for foreign titles, or the deriving guideline for paintings (and similar). The counter example you gave, Seven samurai, are so named because Japanese does not have indefinite/definite articles, and the guideline specifies that for those languages the article name should not use “The”. Now this article doesn't follow that guideline, and has become (the only?) one of the exceptions. -Laniala (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The literal translation is irrelevant. The most used title is what counts and this article finally does follow the guidelines. Have a nice day :) Film Fan (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question. -Laniala (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Trolljegeren?

[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.

The result of the proposal was not moved. The logic of the proposal and supports is baffling. This is a baby with bathwater proposal that ignores the reasoning behind the relevant title naming policies—there are four English names which people argued over so we should move this to a title that will confound (astonish) the expectations of most people searching for this movie with an unexpected and unfamiliar, non-English title? The discussion of original research is a misunderstanding of that policy's applicability (original research is a standard applied to material we wish to add to the encyclopedia and not to the external sources). Meanwhile, we could indeed play pin the tail on the donkey for which English name variation to use but we do not need to since one was chosen in the prior, closed discussion. The fact that some may still not like which one of the English common title forms was chosen is not any basis for choosing one that people will not recognize. We could invoke IAR here if the proposal would benefit the encyclopedia, but here it would not. At the forefront of our consideration should be maximizing the interests of readers, not making a point because of a behind the curtain squabble. In short, no compelling basis has been made out to contravene multiple policies to move this to an unnatural and uncommon name that most of our readers will not recognize.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal and concerns

[edit]

Trollhunter → TrolljegerenTrolljegeren – I have read the discussion, and it seems to me that the interpretation of the sources, even when I haven't read the sources yet, prove English names with different modifications to be vague and dubious to accurately use for the Wikipedia article. "Trollhunter", "Troll Hunter", "The Troll Hunter", and whatever that has "Troll" and "Hunter" within... I don't know how this is worth arguing for or against.

However, I'm proposing a renaming to the original Norwegian name, Trolljegeren, because, even when English is a reliable, common, and comfortable language for English readers, it helps people decide whether to use one English spelling or the other English, as the Norwegian title is absolute and prestigious and avoids warring over one or the other.

As discussed in WT:RM#Strange move closure?, one is concerned over the closure because "trollhunter" was excluded from proposal; the rest said it was the right decision. However, I wonder if we should always use English titles due to policies and guidelines. I wonder: is titling foreign works into English the right preference? This is why I don't title dan dan you qing into either English translation: Light Exquisite Feeling and Most Exquisite Feeling, which are redirects to there. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)... I don't know what it says, but I don't see how this guideline solves problems of the previous discussion. The Big Day is redirected to Jour de fête. WP:UE instructs us to use English title based on accurate translation with or without reliable sources; MOS:ENGVAR... does it have real answers of accuracy? Maybe Planet of the Apes (novel) and La Planète des singes are the correct answers to this problem, but I doubt it, even when I prefer "Planet of the Apes" as the usable, preferable, and common name ever made for English-language understanders. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've misunderstood the use English policy. When English language titles are available, we use those over foreign language titles. If no English language title is available, then you have the option of translating the foreign language title or using the foreign title itself, particularly if English language sources tend to use the original foreign title. You're confusing 'translation' with 'existence'. --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stroke out my misinterpretation. Per WP:UE, available English title is preferred over foreign title. If English title is not avaiable, either foreign title or English title. Did I get it right? If so, then I don't know which source is reliable. Maybe "reliable" sources... may be reliable, but does that "reliable non-primary source" surpass the original foreign title, a WP:primary source? --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)An English title is preferred over the foreign title. When one is available, we use that regardless of whether it is an accurate translation or not (sometimes, the English title and the foreign title may have completely different meanings, cf. Throne of Blood). You should ignore the original language title and look only at reliable English language sources (The New York Times is an excellent example of a reliable English language source). (Unless, the English language title is little used and the film is also known in English sources by its foreign language title. In that case, the foreign title becomes the reliably sourced English title. cf. Pather Panchali). --regentspark (comment) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little off-topic, but I have done inserting "copyright status" section in Storm in a Teacup (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) several months back. They considered it an original research because primary sources that I used do not interpret or say that the film was either out of copyright or still copyrighted. Therefore, we discussed first, while I used sources as part of Further reading and External links, and the decision was "no consensus to include".
Back on topic let's get. To be honest, I think it was an "original research" to say "Trollhunter" is correct way to please English readers, accurate or not. Interpretting that either "(The) Troll Hunter" or "Trollhunter" is correct or incorrent is an "original research", and no other sources have analyzed the spellings and modifications of English translations. The notability of an accurate English title is not yet established. If it is not an original research, then how will I be proven wrong to say that it the English titling is an "original research" or non-notable? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you of one thing. If The New York Times calls the film "Trollhunter" in its review (as the closer of the previous move request says), it is definitely not Original Research. That's the whole point of relying on reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To analyze its reliability ([1]), I have questions. Why did the reviewer choose that translation rather than others? Why did the reviewer appease the readers by doing so? Has the reviewer analyzed the translation and other translations themselves? If reliable, is the translation itself reliable and used by other sources? Is the review overall reliable for translation accuracy? --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(another comment) Why was NY Times interpretted as a reliable source for naming an article by that English translation of a title in a previous discussion? Was NY Times correct or incorrect? Are other translations correct? Does using "trollhunter" make NY Times correct? Were other sources wrong or unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(more) WP:TRANSCRIPTION might or might not have answers for this. This begs a question: was a previous move a "faithful translation"? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions are all besides the point and show a basic lack of understanding of how we use sources. The point is that the NYT used "Trollhunter", therefore Trollhunter is an English name for the film per a reliable source. There may or may not be other competing English names, but Trollhunter is definitely one. Original research doesn't enter into the picture at all. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, New York Times is reliable because "New York Times" says so? Mostly, it is reliable for events, works, nature, and people. Is it reliable to be a titler of non-English works by using one English movie title in reviews and articles? I beg your pardon, but I haven't seen the reviewer analyze or review the title in a review. Why would international distributors choose either "Troll Hunter" or "The Troll Hunter", and U.S. distributors choose "Troll Hunter", while the review calls it "Trollhunter"? --George Ho (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess that New York Times, like most newspapers, magazines, online shops, bloggers, etc that do a film review, they were either at a promotional preview at some cinema/theatre, or were simply handed a DVD/Blu-ray. The spelling then reflects back on what that version says from that distributor's side. So in the case of spellings of film titles, I would consider that as reliable as the distributor's spelling is, which in this Troll film's case varies. -Laniala (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me, it would be an original research to conclude that either one or the other English title is common by sources, reliable or not, by concluding that many sources says one or one reliable says other. Even "reliable sources", such as review or the English distributors, do not conclude that one or the other is right or wrong. In fact, I decide to conclude that the previous discussion itself was an WP:OR and a violation of WP:NOT (in some ways, if not all) by nomination, interpretation, and closure because sources are concluded to be reliable or unreliable, to be used for personal preferences or pleasure, and to please and appease English readers rather than to improve inner integrity of educating people the right way. I have begun to think it was wrong to make one group feel inferior by doing either way in the previous discussion to make the other superior because... everybody is correct ...in their "special" ways. However, RegentsPark doesn't think it is an "original research", but... Anyway, WP:TRANSCRIPTION says "faithful translation" is not an original research. How faithful are "Trollhunter", "troll hunter", "The Troll Hunter"? If all three are faithful, then why fighting over this? Isn't "faithful translation" vague? Anyway, maybe we must discuss guidelines and policies further after closure of this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As said elsewhere, what is most common depends entirely on how you search, how the search engine interprets your search query, and how you decide to interpret the search result. Being such a common word as “The” and a simple character as a space, you can come up with the result you want from your point of view. So I agree, concluding on what is the most common would be original research (at least in this case), and which is also why I found the previous move odd when it was using Common Name as reason for the move to “Trollhunter”.
    Saying what NYT calls the film would not be original research. But from this newspaper's spelling concluding that it is more reliable than others and that newspaper's spelling is the most common name in existence, I certainly would claim is original research, and might be close to WP:SYNTHESIS.
    If following WP:TRANSCRIPTION and “faithful translation [...]” then “The Troll Hunter” is the only correct alternative. Ref. Norwegian_language#Nouns. Alternatively “The Trollhunter” depending on how you decide to spell it, cf. English compound. Other versions would not point to Hans, the troll hunter we follow through the film. -Laniala (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With my apologies, George Ho, this is devolving into farce. You need to get it into your head that a reliable source is a reliable source because they're generally good with fact checking. If we can't trust any source, then we'll need to replace the WP:UE with WP:UF because who the heck knows what the person giving the English title was thinking anyway. You're just throwing policies around without understanding any of them and I'm beginning to wonder if it is mere coincidence that this article has the word "Troll" in its title. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the same a while ago during the initial move and edit warring ;D [2] and the response was that I was a kid and ignorant, maybe because I misspelled Blu-ray... -Laniala (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Regents: To be fair, yes, reliable is reliable. Well, I was wrong to call NYTimes an original research and unreliable. "Trollhunter" is verified by NYTimes; that's it. However, as Laniala said, concluding either one English spelling from one source is more official for the article title than other reasonable titles... if that is not a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, what do you call? And am I trolling; if so, how? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If one reliable english source uses Troll Hunter and another uses Trollhunter, then both are candidate titles for the articles and neither can be, by definition, original research. The fact that you keep throwing policies around without seeming to understand them is why I think it may be possible you're just trolling. Not saying you are, just that it's possible. Another possible alternative is that you have serious competency issues. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...After this discussion is over, maybe we can take the OR matters related to this topic to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, as there's no pointing out about who's right or wrong. They know what to do. If you want to discuss me, come to my talk page. By the way, what does this mean:

The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

I wonder if this relates to article titling by this, as well:

[WP:Article title] is supplemented by other more specific guidelines, which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.

Can you prove how I misunderstood policies and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought about the title translations themselves, there are "troll" and "hunter" in each translation. Troll=troll, jegeren=hunter, isn't it? Concluding one name as a common name may vary on reliable sources and available translations. In this case, regardless of spelling, all translations of Norwegian title are verified by reliable sources and correct. I should have known earlier that my conclusions were too rushed and flimsy, and there is no excuse for my wordings, misleading or not. Violation of WP:BATTLE is not ruled out by me, however (obviously, the previous discussion is full of battles over translations and spellings). Moreover, I'm concerned over policies and guidelines of translations that may intend to please English readers, as something like the previous discussion and WT:RM#Strange move closure? may happen again. Also, my concerns over closure is not ruled out by me, but, if it didn't violate WP:OR, it may have violated any other policy or guideline. Nevertheless, I don't know how I'll be careful about violation claims next time. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if there's any question left regarding the title, it's whether it should be Trollhunter or Troll Hunter. Fight over that all day long if you care about it (I cared enough to have the "The" removed, because that's a heavily minority title), but the fact is: TROLLHUNTER--with or without a space--is the most used title by a longshot, so it will not be changed to the original Norwegian title. Film Fan (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

The English language is preferred over the original foreign one (if it was originally a foreign movie or book), but pages like Let the Right One In, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and The Orphanage keep their English titles. Let the Right One In isn't 'Låt den rätte komma in' even though thats its original title. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo isn't 'Män som hater kvinnor' (translates literally to Men Who Hate Women). The Orphanage isn't 'El Orfanato'. But I see that you are saying that with Trolljegeren, there aren't any other titles, so then the readers can choose which one they want to, either Troll Hunter, or The Troll Hunter, or TrollHunter. But as titles on Wikipedia, even if the article is based on a foreign film or novel, it will mostly always have its English title, like another poster has said, if it actually has one. So I say we keep to the English.Charlr6 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Even though such a move would not be consistent with article naming guidelines (Trolljegeren is not a common title in English language sources) I think it is worth invoking WP:IAR in this case, for the simple fact there is no definitive English language alternative. An agreement on which Englis title to use clearly isn't going to be reached, so we could redirect all the English variations to it and be done with this debate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I seriously doubt if moving to a non-English title, against policy, will resolve anything. Article naming should not be taken lightly. Our readers expect to see something that makes sense to them when they type in their preferred topic title and choosing something that is, at best, a third choice title that will likely be unfamiliar to English speakers, is not a good way to go about doing that. --regentspark (comment) 21:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When there are established English-language options, we should choose one. Dohn joe (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no reason to move to native name when an English one exists. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one question for you: Do you think moving this article to "Trollhunter" rather than "Troll Hunter" or keeping it as "The Troll Hunter" was the right move? Is this relevant to this discussion to you? --George Ho (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, sources prefer to use one spelling, others prefer another, others prefer one. In other words, not "an English one", but three English ones... or more. Why would moving it to original non-English title be pointless if there are more than two English names? No sources say that one name is correct or incorrect; no sources say either the other or two are incorrect or correct. Yes, they are available. However, I wonder if anybody here has read the previous discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trollhunter is by far the most used title, as concluded in the previous discussion. If it was unclear which was used the most and the difference between Trollhunter and Troll Hunter wasn't so negligible, I would consider your argument, but as it is, no way. Film Fan (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that isn't true at all, as you well know. The hit rate on google for "troll hunter" [3] is much higher than the hit rate for "trollhunter" [4]. You are welcome to your opinion in this matter but please don't misrepresent the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, Bets. TrollHunter, Troll Hunter. Negligible. I couldn't care less if you put a space in it or not. It's still the most used title by a long shot. Film Fan (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per reasons given by nominator, George Ho, and Betty Logan. In addition, as pointed out in the questioning about the move closure, it now seems to me the previous move to Trollhunter have similarities with WP:BATTLE, so this move to the original title would be a neutral title where nobody can argue about the spelling. -Laniala (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per George Ho and Betty Logan. Multiple titles exist in English, and are detected to be equally preferred, making it impossible to decide which to use. Hence, a move to a title in the official language of the country of its production from which redirects could be created so that the readers land up here would be more than just useful. Not only that, it would avoid the edit-warring which has been happening. Secret of success (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is ridiculous; we have two or three commonly used English titles, and because we can't all agree on which one is the best to use (though all seem to agree that any would be at least OK), we should use the non-English title that very few English speakers will have heard of? That's not supported by any guideline and it's certainly not supported by common sense. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How's that not a "common sense"? Seems you appear text-frustrated by the way I do. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's my point, it is common sense that we shouldn't disadvantage readers to appease a few editors who can't decide whether there should be a space in the title or not. And yes, I am a little frustrated because this is a waste of time. Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Using the same argument as the previous move closure, COMMONNAME, how is Trolljegeren more ridiculous than Trollhunter. Excluding Norwegian sites, I personally get pretty close numbers for the spelling “Trollhunter” as for “Trolljegeren”. [5] (here Google even asks me if I meant “Troll Hunter”) [6] But as I also have said, your search method and search result might be different, which is why Google searches should taken with a big pinch of salt in concluding what is the most common, at least with such common words and characters as “the” and a space. -Laniala (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but even excluding Norwegian sites, many of the hits are not in English. I haven't looked too closely to be honest, but your comments seem to me like they might be a valid reason to move the article to "Troll Hunter", something which I would consider supporting. Jenks24 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was going to suggest speedy close per WP:SNOW, but am stymied by the fact that there are several in support of this bizarre proposal. Jenks is absolutely right. Because we can't all agree on which of 2 or 3 commonly used slight variations of the same name is the most commonly used, we should ditch them all, ditch WP:UE, and go with Norwegian per IAR? The only precedent I can think of for such reasoning is the compromise title temporarily used by the Sega Genesis article. See the FAQ at Talk:Sega Genesis for that story, but the upshot is that the compromise title was ultimately rejected in favor of one of the two titles about which initially there was no agreement, just as there is here.

    To apply the reasoning there to this case: It is true that "Trollhunter", "Troll Hunter", "The Troll Hunter" and even "TrollHunter" are all perfectly acceptable titles for this article. However, the simple fact that there are multiple reasonable titles for this article is not a good reason to invoke IAR to use an unreasonable one that flies in the face of principles and guidance at WP:CRITERIA and WP:UE. Titles should not be changed unless there is a good reason to do so (like when the name conflicts with other uses in Wikipedia), and since this current title, Trollhunter, is perfectly fine, and no title that meets policy/guidelines better has been proposed, there is no good reason to move it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • By that same reasoning, shouldn't the article have been kept at its old title “The Troll Hunter” which it had for one and a half year? Instead it was proposed moved to “Troll Hunter”, but ended up at “Trollhunter” just because Jsigned aka Film Fan would not under any circumstances allow it to be kept with a “The” in front, and in the end did look very much like WP:BATTLE [7][8][9][10].
    It's not like WP policies and guidelines have been followed strictly so far in my opinion, but have been applied pretty liberally. My suggestion was to follow WP:THE which was shot down and ignored. Instead WP:COMMONNAME was used on a title that arguably is the least common spelling of the three suggested “Trollhunter”, “Troll Hunter”, “The Troll Hunter”. -Laniala (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, that won't help, as well. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Changing English name to English name to English would be warring over and over. Changing English to English won't help ease tensions; it stresses more. THE and COMMONNAME are a little too vague for non-English topics that have more than two reasonable English titles per sources. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to what you're saying here. :) I was just trying to point out why it in my opinion looks odd to reject this move request, but still allow the first move request to be kept, especially when the first didn't end up at the requested title, and used WP policies quite liberally (in my opinion) to place the article where it now is. -Laniala (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not "odd", what else would you call it? "Hypocritical" is too strong, undesirable, and slanderous, so let's not use that. "Weird" is too generic and too misunderstood. How about "coincidental"? As what you said, I wonder why English titles are worth battling about, while this proposal of mine is obviously becoming rejected by majority. --George Ho (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would go with the title on the actual film, which is TROLLHUNTER for the English-subtitled version. For WP purposes, that would be Trollhunter, which is what we have now. Thus no title change is needed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And subtitle translators never make mistakes? ;) There are several well known and "famous" translator mistakes of English films to Norwegian subtitles that were applied to well known films. Star Wars probably having the most well known translator mistakes. But I suppose without knowing Norwegian they are kind of hard to understand. -Laniala (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the RM above, WP:USEENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME, and every other WP pillar, policy, guideline, essay, and talk page other than WP:IAR. (Even WP:IAR, since ignoring the rules here has no benefit to WP.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not have any benefit to WP? I seriously beg to differ. After all, we aren't here to act as lawyers. Secret of success (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, using the title Trolljegeren seriously has no benefit whatsoever to the encyclopedia, and only a marginal benefit to a subset of the editorship. Anyone acting like a lawyer is invited to stop, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seriously people. This move request and, I'm sorry to say, the support !votes from some generally reasonable people, is about the silliest I've ever seen (and, trust me, I've closed hundreds of them so I know what I'm talking about!). We have two English titles which are almost exactly the same (I mean, "Troll Hunter" and "Trollhunter", different, really?) and we're supposed to be talking about using instead a Norwegian title that no one has ever heard off? The only benefit apparently is that we'll get the chance to "not act like lawyers" (with apologies SOS!). IAR is one thing but we might as well chuck the entire policy framework, particularly the one about using recognizable titles, out of the window with this one! --regentspark (comment) 14:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regentspark, if you have a better solution that will give equal weight to all the English titles without any difference, I would be pleased to hear it. Secret of success (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Picking either would be fine. Picking neither is so far from right that it defies belief. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That gives an impression of sole "official title" to the reader, when it may not be so. Trolljegeren would be definitive, and suit the country of its production. Secret of success (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our readers should never be under the impression that our article titles are normative. Again, the least worst option here is clearly picking a title that readers will have heard of rather than one they wouldn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Overheard on Bear Mountain) JACK: "Hey. I saw this great movie Trollhunter. You should check it out." JILL: "You mean you saw Trolljegeren." JACK: "Trolljugwhat? I saw Troll Hunter." JILL: "Wikipedia says it is called Trolljegeren." JACK: "Oh. I guess Loews, fandango, and the distributor got it wrong. Really, why don't they check with wikipedia before they name a film." Jack shifts the bucket to his left hand. "Hey Jill, will you join me in a roll down this hill?" (You guys can enjoy Trolljugwhatever in the original Norwegian. I'm off to see Troll Hunter or Trollhunter, in English!) --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 27 April 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.

File:TrollHunter.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:TrollHunter.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 20 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TrollHunter.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Film Fan (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of cheap special effects ...

[edit]

(And far more interesting than the above interminable palaver about the film's name - names get changed, repeatedly, at all stages of production, and even more often when there are multiple language audiences to play for ; meh. Live with it.) Wasn't the same stuffed bear (a suspiciously plastic-y stuffed bear) used in the early "bear in a field" scene and later in the "polish cleaning crew" scene? AKarley (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trollhunter&oldid=1316483468"