Talk:Willow (1988 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Willow (1988 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Willow (1988 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 20, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Animation: American / Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Film: British / New Zealand / 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 British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Is it Eborsisk or Sispert?[edit]

The article contradicts itself on this point. Is it both? If so, that should be clarified inline. Hijiri 88 (聖やや ) 12:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital morphing image[edit]

It would be better if this were either an animation or at least a side-by-side with multiple frames (at least 3, though 5 would be ideal), so you can see the actual transformation. — trlkly 14:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmer Tweet About A Possible Sequel[edit]

Is there a citation for that rambling train wreck of a paragraph that Val Kilmer allegedly Tweeted about a possible sequel to Willow? Xin Jing (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2022[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 - no consensus. Some opposition not addressed, despite much support for the motion. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willow (film) → Willow (1988 film) – There is another film Willow (2019 film). 71.95.108.35 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. "Willow (film)" is incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to the Willow (disambiguation)#Film and TV dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support since neither film is the primary topic; the tree willow is the primary topic. All other topics are not primary and should be disambiguated from each other. This is codified at WP:PRIMARYFILM; see the Titanic film examples. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 1988 film is still the obvious primary topic by pageviews. It normally gets more than 20 times the pageviews as the 2019 film which is well above the primary topic threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1988 film is not the primary topic; willow is. There is no such thing as "Willow (film)" in the real world. The "(film)" disambiguation term is solely a Wikipedia construct, the only term that matters for discussion is "willow". There is only one primary topic, and everything else is secondary. We should not be ranking non-primary topics to be second or third in ambiguity or lack thereof. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: Ironically, in Talk:Cast Away#Requested move 15 October 2019 I argued the exact same thing and was completely repudiated. Despite it being extremely easy to assume that "Castaway" was the title of the Tom Hanks movie, people successfully agreed to keep it at Castaway (film) rather than further disambiguating it, because it was an obvious primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Shwcz (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per en.wp naming rules. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:INCDAB states that In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. This is clearly the case; the 1988 Willow film takes precendence over the 2019 Willow film, meaning the location at Willow (film) is perfectly acceptable. -- Alex_21_TALK 21:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With 25 times the pageviews of the obscure Macedonian film, this film is clearly the primary topic for its title. And with a hatnote pointing to the 2019 film, there is no benefit to sending everyone to a dab page. Station1 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be noted that, unlike Thriller (album), there is not a single English Wikipedia entry styled as "XXXX (film)" alongside one or more other entries styled "XXXX (YEAR film)", not even for the redirect Titanic (film) per WP:PRIMARYFILM, as already indicated in the above comment by Erik. Thus, if we were to enable the continued existence of Willow (film) alongside Willow (2019 film), it would be the sole such inconsistent film entry in English Wikipedia. As for the previously mentioned "Castaway", those two film entries, although similar, are not analogous to the two Willow films — Cast Away and Castaway (film), rather than the inconsistent alternative option A: Cast Away and Castaway (1986 film) or option B: Cast Away (film) and Castaway (1986 film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support It’s standard rules, and it doesn’t matter if this is the most viewed movie page, there’s still other films named Willow so we need that clarification. Frozen (2013 film) is the same, despite being the biggest film named “Frozen”. AlienChex (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think around 20x is enough for a PDAB and 2019 is probably long enough ago recentism wouldn't be too much of an issue. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 20x the views is an enormous discrepancy, particularly when we're comparing a film from 34 years ago with a recent film, which would tend to inflate the latter's figures. WP:INCDAB is clear that we can and should use an incomplete disambiguator in this case, as is the case for, say, Thriller (album). — Amakuru (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: INCDAB (opposers) and PRIMARYFILM (supporters) camps remain at war with each other. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYFILM. Partial disambiguation would not be helpful to readers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support not only WP:PRIMARYFILM but the fact that it would be helpful to readers, as it would clear up any possible confusion. Historyday01 (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Orthostasis (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYFILM. The issue of partial disambiguation was resolved years ago by the Film Project: if we going to disambiguate then the titles should be fully diasmbiguated. Precisely why Avatar (2009 film) is not a Avatar (film). This is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue since neither film is the primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. After reading comments by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and mellohi, I think it should remain as, Willow (film).Halbared (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (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 12 October 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 (non-admin closure). The bar for an incomplete disambiguation is high (significantly higher than for a usual primary topic) and in this case there is a rough consensus that this topic does not reach that bar. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willow (film) → Willow (1988 film) – title is clearly ambiguous as there is more than one film with this title. Per WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYFILM, titles should be fully disambiguated if any ambiguity exists. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only applies to undisambiguated titles, not partially disambiguated ones like this, unless an expcetion is made per WP:INCDAB. However, the general consensus on film is per the guideline WP:PRIMARYFILM so we need to defer to that here as the group consensus clearly trumps any individual consensus. --wooden superman 12:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, again, per WP:INCDAB. Nothing has changed in the 10 months since the last RM. This famous film still gets 97% of the pageviews in a WP:ONEOTHER situation, easily meeting the higher threshold of INCDAB. There's really no point in sending 97% of readers using this title to a dab page, especially when the 3% wouldn't even benefit. The arguments presented in the proposal do not enjoy consensus, as shown in the just-closed RM of Vertigo (film). - Station1 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:INCDAB states that Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to the disambiguation page. No exception should be made because WP:PRIMARYFILM is the underlying guideline here. --wooden superman 08:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the key word is "usually". INCDAB goes on to state In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. In this case, with 97% of the views and only one other possibility, it easily qualifies. Station1 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. "Willow (film)" is incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to the Willow (disambiguation)#Film and TV dab page. It may be also noted that in the previous nomination — Talk:Willow (film)#Requested move 28 November 2022 — the "no consensus" votes were not evenly distributed — among the 16 votes, 5 supported Willow (film), while 11 supported Willow (1988 film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Roman. An incomplete title does not server readers nor does it help editors. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Station1, usually does not mean always. The title is already disambiguated, further disambiguation is not necessary as this is the primary topic for films that are named "Willow". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYFILM. 162 etc. (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reject the notion of a primary disambiguator. The parenthetical disambiguator has only one purpose, disambiguation. And if there are 2 films with the same title, then usuing "(film)" for either title disambiguator is inherently ambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and those above. While I do believe that there can be a primary topic for a disambiguated title, the bar for that must be extremely high, and I think the 2019 film has sufficient significance to force further disambiguation. BD2412 T 02:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Station1 above. Here again, an exception not only can but should in my view be made, given the extremely greater notoriety of this film.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adding "1988" to the title doesn't seem like a major burden and would improve consistency among film articles per WP:PRIMARYFILM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per BD2412. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 23 October 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.