Talk:Marriage Story

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	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 American cinema task force.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Poster

Netflix released two posters to promote the film. One with Adam Driver (the one we are using here on Wikipedia) and another with Scarlett Johansson. Shouldn't we use the one with Johansson since she's the top billed actor in the film? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mazewaxie, where is it indicated that she is the top-billed actor? I would be fine with this change if it can be shown that this is the case. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Here and here and for example. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted it to be more official. I checked the trailer and saw Johansson first. I support this poster change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Untitled Noah Baumbach Project" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Noah Baumbach Project. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear as to the primary topic. The WP:TWODABS disambiguation page will be quashed. BD2412 T 14:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Story (2019 film) → Marriage Story – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Yes, this film is quite new, but I don't think it's a stretch to say it's already received more acclaim and coverage than the 1992 movie has ever gotten. No sense waiting for Oscar season to move the page... Nohomersryan (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, clear primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at first I thought "Marriage Story" was a populated page, but it isn't. This is clearly the primary topic. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 22:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's already received more acclaim and coverage than the 1992 movie has ever gotten in English language reviews. But, as the Korean film was fourth top-grossing for the period 1990-95, I suspect this film has a ways to go to catch up to it in Korean-language reviews. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh. If the link in the article is really true, the 1992 movie didn't come anywhere close to cracking the top 10 films of any language in that time period in Korea, because nine out of ten were all Hollywood imports. So it wouldn't shock me if the new film wasn't completely obscure over there, especially given the Award buzz. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature due to the 2019 film being too recent and the fact that the 1992 film does have coverage that indicates its long-term significance, despite the lack of work in its Wikipedia article. One can see a snippet from The Changing Face of Korean Cinema: 1960 to 2015 here and from New Korean Cinema: Breaking the Waves here and from New Korean Cinema here and numerous results at Google Scholar here. The 2019 film has a lot of coverage now, but will it be much more remembered? We need time to tell. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's no realistic scenario where viewers are not searching for the 2019 movie. Only 52 DB ratings and 10 daily hits, and not Golden Globe or Oscar-nominated like in 2019. The fact that the existing page is a WP:TWODABS only makes this more obvious. --Quiz shows 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support 100 percent. This movie definitely has more notability than a random Korean rom-com. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having a date in the article title is not a functional barrier to people finding the article. And at bedrock, there is more than one movie titled Marriage Story. Are there examples of other titles where one "gets" the undisambiguated article title? If so maybe I can be swayed. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is A Star is Born, but each of those has a clarified title. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be misinterpreting what you mean, but you seem to want other movies that are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? There are quite a lot of those. A sampling from my recent RM history: The Irishman, Never Look Away, No Time to Die, What Men Want Nohomersryan (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to confirm my Oppose for now due to WP:RECENTISM Nevermore27 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Nevermore is asking for is examples of multiple films with the same title where one is the primary topic, as if the A Star Is Born from 1937 was just titled "A Star Is Born" and all the others were followed by "... (YEAR film)." El Millo (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Korean film is also known as The Marriage Life, and in fact this is the title used on the Korean article for the film. I'm not sure if that's just janky translation, but it opens up the possibility that the Korean film could be relocated to that title and make this conversation more or less moot. As for the substance of the argument, the long-term significance prong of PRIMARYTOPIC is (as it often is) being relegated mostly to an afterthought, and WP:RECENTISM and WP:GLOBAL are both germane here. Chubbles (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per recentism. The eponymous movie was the highest-grossing South Korean film of 1992. Not an obscure flick that should give way on a PT rationale… — JFG ^talk 19:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The Korean film is called The Marriage Life in just about every official source from South Korea. Sinobball (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If we can find some references that translate the film title the way you have translated, then we should rename the 1992 film article and solve the issue that way. Banana Republic (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A truly overwhelming primary topic with over 99% of the pageviews. The dab page is getting 182 views per day, 4 times that of the 1992 film! Virtually everybody landing on Marriage Story wants the new film. Station1 (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being in the news right now because a film with a given title has just been released is not the measure of which film with that title is the primary topic. (Imagine some 2020 indy outfit producing a film about the aftermath of a hurricane with the title Gone with the Wind with a big publicity machine behind it for promotion at film festivals and art houses, but that no one ever sees again after that.) Check back in five years, and remember to take into consideration (a) location bias and (b) era (pre- vs. post-Internet) bias in the preponderance of online sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo, does that mean you oppose this move? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment" means I had an observation in response to a particular recurring argument being made here but without implying that I have an opinion on the question before us. Largoplazo (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee that between the two films, this one will still be the primary topic in five years. Station1 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, now I'm convinced. A total stranger, probably from only one part of the planet, guarantees it as a worldwide truth. Largoplazo (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ONEOTHER, the overwhelmingly greater recognition of Baumbach's film and given the pages' comparative pageview stats. I grieve in stereo (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JFG. In terms of long-term significance, especially in a WP:WORLDWIDE context, the 1992 movie is clearly very notable and it's too early to say that this one is more so. — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if one is looking for the most recent title the year 2019 will help locate the film.Eschoryii (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection I think if any movie has a second movie with the same name both or all movies should list their year of release. Wikipedia rules should be changed for film similar titles. In other words as soon as a duplicate title comes out, both movies should be dated in the title. Readers would know the timeline and be able to find the movie that interests them. No decision or consensus of which movie was first or more popular would be necessary.Eschoryii (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – This is the English Wikipedia. The 1992 South Korean film is not named "Marriage Story", but rather "Kyeolhon iyagi", which translates into English as "Marriage Story" (and according to @user:Sinobball it's a mis-translation). It should be noted that the promotional poster for the film does not have a single English character. This should make this article the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Going beyond the language issue, the fact that this article is much more in-depth than the article on the 1992 film is another evidence that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The way I am reading the oppose arguments, they seem to defend the other article's notability. This is not an AfD for the other article. Nobody is challenging the notability of the 1992 film. It's only a matter of - are they equally well known in the English speaking community. The answer is clearly no. This film is much better known than the South Korean film. Banana Republic (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. WP:RECENTISM does not apply here as this is not "news blib" situation where high interest suddenly appears, peaks, and disappears just as quickly, especially when considered relative to the likelihood that anyone is looking for the Korean film. Come on, folks. 99% of the page views are to this article. I can guarantee along with Station1 that between the two films, this one will still be primary in five years. If this isn't a primary topic, nothing is. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the WP:RECENTISM argument, but this film will be the primary topic five/ten/however many years out. Making a comparison to Gone with the Wind is just absurd. Conifer (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cast list order

Editors are slowly edit warring over the Cast list order. Driver receives top billing on the poster, but Johansson is listed first in the billing block (you must check the high resolution version of the poster to verify the billing block[1]). So who should be listed first. Can we get consensus and stop this slow and stupid edit war? -- 109.78.221.119 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary. Give a clear reason why it should be one way or the other. See WP:BRD particularly WP:DISCUSS. I have again reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO.[2] [3] -- 109.76.212.43 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There are countless vandalism in the article. From Jean-Claude van damme to Kylo Ren and Black Widow. We need to protect this article and rewrite it so that no one can vandalize it anymore. Skabe24 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Issue with the Plot section

I didn't want to just go out and change it without commenting here for some sort of consensus. Bert does not tell Charlie to drop his New York residence. Am I wrong?

~~~ Browk2512 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]