Entertainment desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 29

Question about the movie Blue Is the Warmest Colour

Is the french movie and graphic novel Blue_Is_the_Warmest_Colour considered to be boderline softcore porn? It has alot of sex scenes. 50.68.118.24 (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By some, yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about porn is that everyone has their own definition, but that definition may be difficult to codify - they know it when they see it though. If the line is un-simulated sex scenes, then, yeah, it would seem to qualify, but there's lots of other definitions to use, including the intention of the director, artistic intention, and many more. Matt Deres (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the edit summary of the header above

The edit summary of the last edit on the topic above reads: ‎Question about a movie, but the header itself is: Question about the movie Blue Is the Warmest Colour... How is that possible!?!? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed here,[1] but there was another edit immediately after it whose edit summary was the original title. There might have been an edit conflict, or it's possible the responder changed his own edit summary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man, do I feel stupid right now, I was so convinced it was filled in automatically, I forgot about the obvious... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is filled in automatically, but it can be changed. Note that I'm now changing the edit summary, as a test, without changing the title. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, in conversations like these, nobody changes it because it's about what's in the header. Doesn't mean you can't change it of course... Like I said (and I'm contributing to (the dutch) Wiki for over a year now), I feel so stupid... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP himself would have to comment, but I think it's most likely that you both hit "save page" at almost the same instant, and somehow his edit went through too, but with the original header as his edit summary, which would have been created when he started to edit. As regards forgetting to sign, the signature bot typically autosigns IP's and brand-new users. For established editors, the bot's default behavior is to leave it alone. But sometimes we forget, and to get around that, you can add this to the top of your user page and/or user talk page: {{YesAutosign}}. That will cause the bot to generate a signature for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try if it works, then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygene7-13 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so it did! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you mean with: it's most likely that you both hit "save page" at almost the same instant? I never had any conflict with my editing and did not contribute to the topic above... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 15:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's my best guess at this point. But it's a puzzler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would that change the summary, then..? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My chrono-logic is this: Editor A begins to edit the section. Editor B begins to edit the section. In both cases, their default edit summary will be whatever it was before. Editor B changes the title, but the edit summary will not change unless he changes it. Editor B saves the changes. Immediately after, Editor A saves his changes. But I don't understand how that could work without an edit conflict arising. Unless this is just an occasional quirk of Wikipedia. Or Editor A might have indeed experience an edit conflict and then had to re-post, and somehow he kept the same title. That's why we need to IP to fill us in on what transpired from his point of view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Edit conflict#Prevention says: "New since v.1.3 is CVS-style edit conflict merging, based on the diff3 utility. This feature will only trigger an edit conflict if users attempt to edit the same few lines". The two edits [2][3] edited different parts of the section so there was no edit coflict. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(after an actual conflict...) I wasn't talking about my edit-summary, I was referring to the last edit of the topic above! There never was a edit-conflict. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you're talking about a specific edit that you've seen in the article's history, the best way to identify it is to give its URL, which you will find via the prev link for that edit on the article's history page. For example, this was the edit that changed the section title, and I believe Oxygene was asking about this edit, which came after it and whose edit summary would therefore normally show the new section title. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was caught up in the biggest misunderstanding I ever had concerning Wikipedia. Absolutely MY BAD. Sorry guys, won't happen again. Thnx for all the provided answers. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 10:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]