Jump to content

Talk:Clerks (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Clerks (1994 film))

Dante is Dead

[edit]

In the original cut of Clerks,Dante is shot and killed (as stated in the main article).Now the question is : How would things be without Dante?What would Randal's reaction be?More importantly,how different would Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Clerks II be? - R.G. 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of that really matters to Wikipedia because it's all speculation and POV. Try imdb's message board for that type of discussion. 204.115.253.51 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that not matter he's the main character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.134.44 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because unsourced speculation is considered original research and is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. DP76764 (Talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, lies, and stolen videotapes.

[edit]

I've removed the following line from the "Reception" paragraph:

"The videotape of this film became one of the most stolen video tapes in America."

Non-cited, of course, and I doubt it ever can be cited, but it sounds like someone has just put it in there for giggles or as an experiment to show how easy it is to insert false information into Wikipedia. I'm sure it violates something else, but I don't know all the acronyms you people use these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Denholm (talk • contribs) 05:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This very talk page lists the original source for that claim: http://web.archive.org/web/20070703055616/http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/jul/20/clerks-ii-slackers-move-to-new-level/ 27.96.199.20 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clerks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2020

[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 to Clerks (film) (closed by non-admin page mover) Danski454 (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks (1994 film) → Clerks – Revert recent undiscussed move. The film seems to be the overwhelming primary topic for the title "Clerks". Requires discussion at least. Station1 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Station1, BrownHairedGirl, Alex 21, and Netoholic: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was posted at WP:RM/TR as a technical request to revert a recent undiscussed move, specifically with the parameter "discuss=no". As such, it should have been moved back to its stable title, "Clerks", automatically, before any discussion was opened on this talk page. Station1 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the lack of support for it below, the admin clearly made the right choice. Not everything needs to be restored to a "status quo" to be discussed; you can't decide to add "discuss=no" and expect/demand that a discussion will not result. -- /Alex/21 23:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is literally the only purpose of the "discuss=no" parameter. Station1 (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only for requests under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" header that may or may not be contested. Not for "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" requests. An administrator has made a decision on this RM and its nature; respect it. -- /Alex/21 07:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Undiscussed moves that are objected to should normally be reverted especially if against a previous RM but in this case there was probably enough opposition that leaving it at this title for a week or so wouldn't hurt. Also as noted the previous request seems to have happened because this title redirected to the title with the extra dot which while a move normally would be needed in that case the correct thing to do would just have changed the target of the redirect to the DAB or occupation which has now been done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This move does go against the last RM discussion from 2006 ((Talk:Clerks (1994 film)/Archive 1#Requested move), and so the page should be moved back as an undiscussed move. It looks like BrownHairedGirl has AWB-replaced all the links to point to the new destination, and probably advisable she self-revert those until a new RM concludes showing consensus to rename. -- Netoholic @ 07:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that previous RM, but I see that RM happened in 2006, when policy on primary topics applied a much lower threshold for determining the primary topic.
A JSTOR search shows:
  1. 127,591 hits for "clerks"
    but only
  2. 10,819 hits for "clerks and film"
So there is no way the the film is the primary topic for the plural of a dictionary term that has been in use for over a millennium. It is absurdly disruptive to assert otherwise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a page mover, I support the move to a disambiguated title. RMs can become outdated, especially those from over a decade ago. -- /Alex/21 09:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this is not an "uncontroversial move" as objection has been raised and it goes against a past RM (even an old one). Consensus can change, and we need a new RM to show it - one that should have taken place prior to moving and mass-changing of links. Not sure why you're throwing "page mover" weight into this, though. -- Netoholic @ 10:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of folly that makes reasonable people despair of editing Wikipedia. It seems that we actually have editors genuinely arguing that that a dictionary term which has been used for over a thousand years should on Wikipedia refer not that thousand-year-old usage, but to a film made 26 years ago. And not only do they want to waste time having a discussion about their bizarre proposition, but they want the links to be re-ambiguated. YCMTSU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, BHG, you know that RMs of this type can go either way - two recent examples of your RMs are pickles and ropes which had opposite results (and showgirls has mixed opinions at the moment). "reasonable people" can wait a week for an RM to close. They also can check talk pages before making a move countering any prior RM, and before AWBing all the links - which BTW is a good way to lose AWB access (hence my suggestion of the self-reverts). -- Netoholic @ 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic, I did check the talk page, tho I missed the archive. Having moved the page, I acted responsibly by disambiguating the links, as required per WP:POSTMOVE. Your suggestion that it is somehow improper to use AWB to dab links after page move is nasty little piece of trolling. Please conduct yourself as if you were part of a collaborative project.
As to the substance of the issue, I repeat that I despair of the folly of those who try to usurp a thousand-year-old dicdef as the title of a 26-year-old piece of fiction rather than one of the most numerous human occupations for several centuries. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not a fanzine, but you are doing a great job of persuading me that this is far fro a universal view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: - Of course, DABing links after an uncontroversial page move is fine... but if the page move itself is controversial, then so are all the link changes, and WP:AWBRULES says "'Being bold' is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus." This isn't "trolling", its pointing out an slight overstep, and you should measure your responses more. -- Netoholic @ 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: As stated twice above, I made what I believed in good faith to be an uncontroversial and obvious move. Now please do try to stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: - was it an "obvious move" when an alternative like Clerks (film) might be a better destination than the one you chose? Its always safer to just open an RM - especially if a move involves mass changes to wikilinks. If its so "obvious and uncontroversial", then that will be quickly apparent and sometimes can even be closed early. -- Netoholic @ 01:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's no need to revert the disambiguating of the redirects per WP:NOTBROKEN since they will continue to work even if this is moved back (which it doesn't look like will happen anyway). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as a page mover, if it was listed here as a TR under the "Uncontroversial technical requests" header, I would have moved it without hesitation. Statistics don't lie. As far as I can tell, the only reason to disagree with the move is a 14-year-old RM; it doesn't "[go] against a past RM", RMs that old clearly have an expiration date. There has been no actual reason presented to disagree with the disambiguation. -- /Alex/21 11:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Clerks (film) as the year is not needed for disambiguation (no other films are named "Clerks"). I'll note that the stable title since 2007 was Clerks, and so a "no consensus" close should revert to that as status quo ante. -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic, there is also the film Clerks II, so the year in the dab does serve a purpose.
    As I noted in the discussion at speedy, the undisambiguated title is clearly wrong. A JSTOR search shows:
    1. 127,591 hits for "clerks"
      but only
    2. 10,819 hits for "clerks and film"
    So there is no way the the film is the primary topic for the plural of a dictionary term that has been in use for over a millennium. It is bizarre that anyone would regard it as acceptable to displace long-term major topic with a 26-year-old work of fiction.
    As to the longevity of the previous undisambiguated title, I see nothing in the policy WP:AT which says that an error should remain uncorrected simply because it has been uncorrected for a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal of disambiguation per WP:ASTONISH. "Clerks" should just redirect to Clerk, as with most WP:plurals. (Much of the 2006 RM was about removing a trailing dot rather than disambiguation.) —BarrelProof (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (move to "Clerks", no problem with moving to "Clerks (film)") because a derivative topic that happens to be pluralized should not be allowed to hijack the primary topic, in this case, clerk or clerks. For all intents and purposes, singular forms and plural forms are interchangeable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Clerks gets 8x the pageviews of clerk. The majority of readers searching for or linking to Clerks will be expecting the film. That makes it the WP:primary topic for WP article titling purposes. Station1 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not policy, only a guideline. "In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic." Station1 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which you, @Station1, misrepresented by omitting by omitting mention of the long-term significance clause. That omission is cherry-picking, which is a type of WP:PLAYPOLICY.
    Please stop your systematic misrepresentation of policy and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Everyone in this discussion so far is very familiar with the guideline, and there's a link to it just in case someone new comes along. Did you misrepresent the guideline by failing to point out how many more people want the film than the "dicdef", as you call it? Of course not. That's what these discussions are for. Station1 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Station1, you explicitly wrote

    The majority of readers searching for or linking to Clerks will be expecting the film. That makes it the WP:primary topic for WP article titling purposes

    That is false, because there is another criterion which you chose to omit.
    Please stop WP:GAMING the system by misrepresenting policy in this way. You have been systematically gaming the system at many other discussions, and it's time for it to stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You just chose to omit the first sentence of what I wrote. Are you misrepresenting my views? Station1 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. The preceding sentence was a point of fact. I was replying to your assertion about the guideline, and I quoted your assertion in full. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary topic for "Clerks" is the plural of "Clerk", a dicdef describing an occupation which has been in existence for over 1,000 years, and which is now one of the most populous occupations in most developed nations.
It is completely absurd that we are even having a discussion about this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fanzine, and an encyclopedia shouldn't even be considering making a 26-year-old work of fiction the primary topic over a real-life topic with such massive long-term significance.
I have posted above evidence of how the film represents a tiny proportion of the hits on JSTOR: 127,591 hits for "clerks" but only 10,819 hits for "clerks and film"
Similar results are returned by Google Scholar: 333,000 hits for "clerks", vs ~54,600 hits for "clerks" and "film". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Clerks (film) per WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2020 (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.

Material

[edit]

What was the film shot on, I assume 16 mm? Or in fact Betamax? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rating/Nudity

[edit]

The article states the rating is only due to the language uses in the movie and even goes so far as to claim that there is no nudity in the film. This is not true. In the "Jizz Mopped" scene, Randal flips over a pornographic magazine to the customer ans you can clearly see a very explicit close-up shot of a female's genitals. 84.160.91.155 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clerks_(film)&oldid=1206720047"