Talk:Elle (film)

Critical response

To Loriendrew: As I've explained on your talk page, could you please tell me if I can put the following sentence on the page or do you think I have to edit it again. Thank you so much. Topkapi 017 (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

" Elle received a rapturous response, including a seven-minute standing ovation, at its Cannes Film Festival international press screening and premiere. Critics particularly lauded Verhoeven's direction and Huppert's performance. "

References

Words like "rapturous" are unencyclopedic (see WP:PUFFERY) unless part of a quote. Leave it to the facts and with sources about the long ovation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation of the title

Lang-x templates are for providing what the referent the word(s) mean is called in the context of a particular language, not what the word(s) per se literally translate as in that language. It should also be noted that italicizing or capitalizing the translation would be very confusing to the reader because 'she' is not a title or a proper noun ('Elle' is, in both French and English), and, as laid out in MOS:SINGLE and Gloss (annotation)#In linguistics, it is a very common practice (and adherent to the MOS) to put a short gloss like this in single quotes to denote the use–mention distinction. Purposefree (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Going to go simple here and use the MOS convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films. Elle is not a common word used in English, appearing most oft used as a given name (see Elle (name).)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The current introduction reads as though the film is called "she" in French-speaking territories. And one cannot put "French:" before "'she'", because it's not French. It is English. It is not even following the MOS as you implied, because the "Japanese:" part in that Ran example is in reference to "乱", and "'chaos', 'wretchedness'" are English glosses. If we stuck to that example, it would be like "Elle (French: Elle, "she")", which is absurdly redundant. Therefore, as far as I know, the best option here is to use {{langnf}}. I don't have a particular preference about link to the language vs. no link, or single quotes vs. double quotes, by the way. Purposefree (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing scene

You forget the important masturbation scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.156.189 (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fork "awards and prizes" content?

Should the accolades be forked to List of awards and nominations received by Elle (film)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Portrait de Paul Verhoeven (2016).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Paternity of Josie's baby

Some people seem to have the "undo" trigger ready. The text may be trimmed, but the fact that Vincent is the only character who believes he's the kid's father is important not only as light comic relief (in a film mostly devoid of comic elements) but also to understand the way Michèle perceives her own (dangerously stupid) son. Trim it if you must, but some mention is necessary I'm afraid. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"you were bold, were reverted, onus is on you to discuss" WTF is this??? There's an intelligence factor here... CodeInconnu (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, you were reverted not because the inclusion of the subplot material is inappropriate, but because you switched from recounting the plot to including interpretive language. We don't do that, per the MOS. Hence my retention of it while removing that material. As far as WTF is this??? There's an intelligence factor here... goes, if you don't understand how WP works, you need to familiarize yourself with BRD and learn to be collegial. What you wrote here is considered a personal attack, and I strongly recommend you strike it. Grandpallama (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is how I react to people calling me "bold" for no reason. You don't know me enough to gauge how bold I am and it verges on ad hominem. CodeInconnu (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So, no, you don't know what BRD is, how WP works, or apparently ad hominem. The next time I see a personal attack from you, you'll end up at ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Same applies to you so I'm going to politely suggest that you don't use an adjective (any adjective) on me *or anyone else* in Wikipedia again, ever. CodeInconnu (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That is such a BITE/anti-AGF behavior. CodeInconnu has only made less than 500 edits. It seems like you're interpreting There's an intelligence factor here... as an attack to you, but I find it more plausible that it was simply referring to CodeInconnu's own edit (that it was not bold—here interpreted to mean "reckless"—but intelligent), as they don't seem to understand what being "bold" means here on Wikipedia.

CodeInconnu, on the English Wikipedia, being "bold" refers to editing without prior consultation with other editors, as described at Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is not a judgment on you or your edit. Nardog (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nardog, I'm not sure what same applies to me, since I never said anything uncivil here. I can understand why you might interpret this at first blush as me not assuming good faith, but you should take a look at the entire sequence of events; beyond that, as you know, AGF isn't a suicide pact. While CodeInconnu is relatively new, their history is also relevant; they've racked up a pretty impressive number of warnings, including a couple for being uncivil, and plenty specifically about the MOS for films and the BRD process. I think I'm interpreting behavior here correctly, including the nasty swipe at my intelligence (particularly in the context of the "WTF is this" addition), since it's exactly the sort of comment they've made in the past about other editors. My warning about civility to CodeInconnu stands. Grandpallama (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing your behavioural interpretation skills and you're definitely entitled to your own self-appraisal regarding them, but the fact of the matter is we all have a history and some histories are even visible in talk pages. My warning to you stands as well and this is the last time I address you directly. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Nardog, I'm not sure what same applies to me, ... Not sure what I'm meant to make of this. I didn't say that part; CodeInconnu did. Nardog (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You are right; the indenting threw me. I have struck that. Grandpallama (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

and thanks for the clarification Nardog, too bad I wasn't having the discussion with you. CodeInconnu (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Then sure you don't mind clarifying yourself, do you? What were you referring to when you said There's an intelligence factor here...? Nardog (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to that directly, I'm just going to invite you to check his last edit. This is someone who believes that "has been infatuated with her" is less interpretative and biased than "is sycophantic towards". So believing Kevin's semblance of infatuation towards Michèle (something only Kevin is supposed to be privy to) is objective, but pointing out the externally obvious (namely that he has a flattering attitude towards his boss) is biased. Just put that in perspective. CodeInconnu (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's an acknowledgment that you opened this discussion with an unprovoked and deliberate personal attack; don't do it again.

Per WP:FILMPLOT, which I know has been brought to your attention before, a film is considered a primary source, so plot summaries must be solely descriptive (Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.). Stating that the employee is sycophantic (and even more, her "most sycophantic") is an inference on your part and a judgment call that other viewers may not share; it's best just to recount the facts of what happened, which is his revelation of a crush when he is confronted. Similarly, rather than talking about what would/wouldn't deter Patrick, we should just recount what is depicted. If you have problems with the fact that we approach film summaries in this way, you can bring it up on the relevant guideline talk pages. Edit warring over it, or inappropriately attacking other editors for adhering to it, is not acceptable WP behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you don't get to tell me what to do.

Second of all, apparently I have to explain this more clearly: if we accept that one the film's points is the gap between appearances and actual intentions, I think it's a bit of a gamble to assume that the employee is infatuated as opposed to merely obsessed, creepily aroused or just malicious. That Kevin decides to blame a fellow employee for sending the video around only when she finds the incriminatory material in Kevin's PC adds complexity and ambiguousness to his intentions. It's also not clarified why he leaves the material in his workplace PC. Nothing is clarified. infatuated indicates feelings that we're not sure Kevin has, whereas calling him sycophantic, which he is in any case, eliminates speculation. That her friend Anne singled him out as a contrast to Kurt in the manner in which she does, would reasonably qualify him as the MOST sycophantic without biased speculation. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Third of all, saying that changing the locks won't deter an intruder adds a dimension of uncertainty on why he'll break in anyway (because he wants to so much? because he has the time, the tools, the skills?...) that is AT LEAST if not more unspecific and nonspeculative as the text in its current form. If you can't understand this, it is not my job to show any more light on it for you.

Fourth of all, don't speak on behalf of the entire WP community (which you've done an annoying amount of times already) or use "we" because it is your interpretation of how film summaries work, I've just proved two different instances of you getting it woefully wrong in the above two items, and I didn't even have to force the situation so goodness knows how often you get it wrong elsewhere.

Not sure who you think you're talking to (or who you're used to deal with) but I have a 3-digit IQ and I've watched this film several times, thank you very much. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. None of that absolves you from abiding by WP:NPA or WP:FILMPLOT. As I said before, personal attacks are unacceptable; focus on content, not editors. And we recount in film summaries what happens in the film--not our own conclusions, inferences, or logical deductions, regardless of our IQ levels. If you're not willing to abide by the standards we use, you're going to find yourself in a never-ending series of editing conflicts. Grandpallama (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"And we recount in film summaries what happens in the film--not our own conclusions, inferences, or logical deductions" -- which I have done, whereas you haven't although you spent paragraphs trying to patronize me saying I haven't done it and am still too inexperienced on how WP works, alas. CodeInconnu (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Elle(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Elle(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 24 § Elle(film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)