Talk:Bonjour Tristesse (1958 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bonjour Tristesse.jpg

Image:Bonjour Tristesse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move for the film; the request for the novel has been withdrawn. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour tristesse (film) → Bonjour Tristesse (film)

* Bonjour tristesse → Bonjour Tristesse Per comments below, nobody proposes this for the novel. -EdJ

Support as nominator. Move is as per correct reading of MoS. SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Since we use the French title for this movie, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art we should be using the French Wikipedia's capitalization rules, which would not capitalize 'tristesse'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we use the French MoS for an Anglo-American film? I can understand if the film was French made, but not for a UK/US production. As far as I read the MoS, it refers only to "French titles of literary works", not film works - and certainly not film works of an Anglo-American source. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the discussion here from WP:RM/TR to allow a consensus to be formed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose for novel the RM includes the novel, where Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art has no question. For the film, neutral, but note per John Gaffney, Diana Holmes Stardom in Postwar France 2011 Page 191 "Big names were used - Deborah Kerr and David Niven in Bonjour tristesse, for example, " indicates that some English sources make the film consistent with the novel even though the film is American. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is only for the film, not the novel. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, then please delete Bonjour tristesse → Bonjour Tristesse from the template. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that for EdJohnston to do, partly as I'm unsure how to, and partly because it was his setting up of the template. Interesting about the Stardom book, but a skim through the results of a Google Books search shows the majority of English language references being in the Anglo style, rather than the rather odd French style. That includes Francois Truffaut's translation of his autobiography, a biography of Otto Preminger, the Guide to British Cinema, and a number of academic works, as well as websites such as TCM and the two main film institutes (whose member companies produced the films), the AFI and the BFI. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the movie. Red Slash 05:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ – I see no rationale from either the nom or the supporter above. Why? It looks like a correct French title already; matches the novel, too. If there's a reason, please state it so that we can consider it; "as per correct reading of MoS" is not an adequate hint. Dicklyon (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all covered above: There is no reason to use the rather odd French MoS for an Anglo-American film. It is understandable if the film were of French origin, but not for a UK/US production. As regards the MoS, it refers only to "French titles of literary works", not film works - and certainly not film works of an Anglo-American source. Added to that, [[WP::COMMONNAME]] also comes into play: see the google books search result, and the weight of use against this rather odd and arcane piece of formatting. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I hadn't read all the discussion, just notice that the proposal was vacuous. I'll withdraw my opposition. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I'm sorry, but WP:FRMOS can't possibly apply here, as this is a British-American film! What's next, moving Le Divorce to Le divorce? --BDD (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.