Talk:Moulin Rouge!

Untitled

Surely it is more based off La Traviata than the other opera? I mean, the bit where he throws the money out of her really clinches it. Perhaps La Traviata (etc) should be mentioned first and not as an afterthought. And I don't see the connection to the story of Orpheus. (Who goes down into the underworld to reclaim his bride, but looks back while leaving, thus she is stuck there, then he gets torn apart...you see where I am going with this)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.22.3 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

- The Orpheus motive, in literature, is about losing a beloved twice. Christian first loses Satine when she breaks up with him to save his life, then when he 'reclaims' her during the finale, she dies, and thus he loses her again. Lunapuella 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

- A particular thing, by the way, that marks it as at least Orpheus-inspired is the fact that he (Christian) "looks back" and then she dies. It's kind of a stretch, but this wasn't my idea - some professor said this when I was at a Latin convention a few years ago; it was his big example of an Orpheus story. Evanbro 06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

- Information regarding similarities between the film's plot and that of La Traviata has been added. Msoul13 (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What was the box office draw, internationally, in UK, in Australia, in America? Dvd sales? Rating overall for its year?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 964267sr (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Box office information has been added to the article. Msoul13 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Kidman casting

Kidman says in the DVD extras that she wanted the part only after she heard who was directing it (likely because of her other comments of being apprehensive about singing on camera). It says 'citation needed' so that's where she's said it on record. NorrYtt (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

!

Does anybody know the ! is used in the title but not on the DVD release? Lukeyboyuk (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Had to make room for Star Wars II?

Can that be right? Wasn't Star Wars II still a screenplay in 1999?VatoFirme (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says principle filming was completed in May of 2000. The Attack of the Clones entry says it started production in June of 2000. So yes. ~ Brother William (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Attack of the Clones article lacks a citation for its production schedule. Citation requests have been added to that article as well as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msoul13 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The citation has been added to the article. Msoul13 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Punctuating titles

03-Aug-2008: Because there are so many songs (over 30) in the film, this is a reminder that Wikipedia uses the system of logical quotations, putting commas/periods outside of quotation marks, unless quoting an entire sentence. Unlike in English grammar, commas should be placed after quotation marks in listing song titles, such as: "Chiquitita", "Fernando", "I Have a Dream". Opera and film names have their titles italicized rather than quoted unless using teletype font. Excessive commas are termed "comma splices" in formal punctuation rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast

Forgot to tag this as a minor edit and leave an explanation for the edit. I added additional members of the cast some time ago, including the character of "The Unconscious Argentinian," the reason being, of course, that characters with much less screen name were included on the first cast list (such as Audrey, whom we meet at the very beginning, but never see again). Someone changed the character's name to "The Narcoleptic Argentinean." Technically, it's more accurate to refer to him as "The Narcoleptic Argentinean," since he doesn't spend his entire screen time unconscious, but he is listed in the movie credits and on various websites as "The Unconscious Argentinean," therefore he is mentioned in the cast list as such. PatrickLMT (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The film's IMDb page refers to that character as "The Unconscious Argentinean." The article has been updated to reflect this, and a citation for the IMDb page has been added. Msoul13 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has been revised to include an explanatory footnote regarding the character's name. Msoul13 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Martin Brown

I'm not a film buff but trying to sort out a dab page at Martin Brown. There's a producer of this name listed for this film at Academy Award for Best Picture and in IMDB, but not on this page. According to IMDB he also produced Romeo + Juliet but isn't listed there. Is this an ingenious hoax, or should his name appear in this article? Or do producers just not get much of a mention? I've dabbed him as Martin Brown (producer), a redlink. PamD (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now found that he was removed in this edit, with no edit summary. Has anyone got a Reliable Source to verify whether he should be listed or not? PamD (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And that editor was a sockpuppet, and AFI site here verifies he was producer, so I've reinstated him. PamD (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Martin Brown (producer) page has been added to the article. However, it is still a redlink page. If anyone is interested in creating this article, some possible sources include Brown's official website and his IMDB page. Msoul13 (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Camille

Is it just me, or has NO ONE got the obvious clue that this movie is a stylized rip-off of the movie Camille? The plot of Camille involves a famous courtesan who is dying of consumption, who is set up to meet a rich duke at the theatre but mistakes a poor guy for him instead and tries to seduce him, falls in love with the poor man after all, ends up meeting the real duke and becomes his possession and can't see the poor man anymore, sneaks out to see the poor man but is eventually caught by the duke, sends away the poor man and pretends not to love him for his own good, the poor man comes back disillusioned and throws money at her to "pay" for the love she gave him, and then in the end they reconcile and she dies in his arms.

THEY ARE THE SAME PLOT. I'm kind of outraged nobody has pointed this out. I mean I love Camille AND I love Moulin Rouge, but you can't ignore the blatant similarities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.210.174 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a reliable source for this, or is this just original research and hence inappropriate for inclusion?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniago (talk • contribs) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with Cukor's version of Camille starring Greta Garbo, but I do also agree that the plot has some major similarities. I'd even go as far as to say that it must have served as an inspiration to Moulin Rouge! The inspiration part may very well be categorized under "original research hence inappropriate for inclusion", but the similarities in the plot for sure aren't. And: IMDb does cite Camille (i.e. Dumas' novel) as an inspiration to Moulin Rouge! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0776658 84.55.221.17 (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Camille" and "La Traviata" are both adaptations of the same novel, so yes, they're kind of similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.41.136.12 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The article now contains a quote from Luhrmann in which he cites Camille as one of the inspirations for the film. The quote was taken from an article in Theguardian.com. Msoul13 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

inspired by Nana ?

Since the subject is French courtesans from the turn of the last century, the movie bears similarity to the famous novel Nana by Emile Zola. The novel is about the rise and fall to fame of a French courtesan/actress in Paris (about 1880). It's not widely read in the US, but it's very well known in France. Several characters even have similar names (Nini/Nana, Satine/Satine). Does anyone know if the screenwriter was inspired by the novel? 78.240.11.120 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Information about Nana has been added to the article. Msoul13 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below section had been tagged for needing sources since 2010. Unsourced material has been removed from the current copy of the article. Feel free to reincorporate information in the below section with appropriate citations, though IMDb ratings are not considered noteworthy in any case. Doniago (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Release and reception

==Release and reception== Originally set for release on Christmas 2000 as a high profile Oscar contender, 20th Century Fox eventually moved the release to the following spring so director Baz Luhrmann would have more time during post production. The film premiered at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival on May 9 — making it the festival's opening title. A limited release on May 18, 2001 in the United States followed, and the film was released to theaters across the United States on June 1, 2001. The film was a success in limited release, grossing $185,095 in two theaters on opening weekend. The numbers continued to increase over the Memorial Day weekend, with the film making $254,098. When it expanded into over 2500 theaters, it made $14.2 million in its first weekend of wide release. The film eventually grossed over $57 million in the United States. It had a brief re-release in October 2001 for Oscar consideration, with Luhrmann stating that his intent was to get Kidman and McGregor nominated. The movie was also successful internationally. It broke box office records in Australia where it was given a rare theatrical re-release at the end of 2001, and found an audience in almost every country. It eventually made over $120 million internationally, resulting in a worldwide gross of $179,213,434. The film holds a rating of 7.6 at Internet Movie Database, 66/100 at Metacritic based on 35 reviews, and a 76% "Fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 187 reviews. The film made its home video premiere on Dec. 18, 2001 on DVD followed by a VHS release on March 19, 2002. A Blu-ray edition was released on Oct. 19, 2010.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniago (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

References

"Release and reception" section has been expanded with reviews from prominent critics. Appropriate citations have been added. IMDb information has been removed. Msoul13 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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: After nearly a month of discussion and a relisting, I'm going to have to close this as no consensus to move, let alone consensus for a move to either proposed title specifically. Though a majority of participants favored a move of some kind, several supported only one option but not the other. I understand there to be a solid consensus against "Moulin Rouge! (2001 film)", but no consensus for a move to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)" (without the exclamation point) over the current title. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Moulin Rouge! → Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) – The "!" fails WP:CRITERIA as sufficient information to identify the article as a 2001 film. Also not sufficient disambiguation from Moulin Rouge (1928 film), Moulin Rouge (1934 film) and most importantly Moulin Rouge (1952 film), directed by John Huston and starring José Ferrer and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Note that 1 of 2 official versions of soundtrack CD cover doesn't have the "!". The "!" is only found in around 60% of Google Book hits. --Relisted. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - the "!" is sufficient to distinguish from the other films, and the only time the year is needed in titling is if there are exact name clashes with other films. The hatnote does a sufficient job of identifying the other possible "Moulin Rouge" hits that are given. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem. Hot Stop 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: MOS:FOLLOW states, "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration." However, WP:NATURAL suggests that Moulin Rouge! could be sufficient here as natural disambiguation. It seems like readers get to where they want to go anyway. Even if we made the move, I'm sure we would be okay with Moulin Rouge! redirecting to Moulin Rouge (2001 film). In the long term, though, considering the number of topics with the same name, an exclamation mark seems like an awfully weak way to differentiate this film from the other topics. There will eventually be a generation that will know of this film as an old one, and I am not sure if they would recall this one with an exclamation mark like those of us who saw it come out and become popular in our time. What do you think, Masem, Hot Stop? (Late addition: I just noticed that In ictu oculi wants to keep the exclamation mark in the move. If we moved it, I would want to drop the mark per the MOS. It seems to be a case where we mention the stylization in the opening sentence but just write Moulin Rouge in the article body.) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Erik, thanks. I'm ambivalent about keeping/losing the ! before (2001 film). It is there in 60/40 of Books. In other RMs where there was x!(song) and x(song) there was an overwhelming case for moving. Here there is merely a strong case. Print sources don't remember the !, so it's likely readers won't either. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To mean, it seems like an unnecessary issue, with the move creating one additional direct for those that are searching on "Moulin Rouge!"; anyone else searching on "Moulin Rouge" (sans !) will end up at the disamb page in either case (working on the argument that this film and, at minimum the 1952, are equally justified as candidates for the most common name, and thus neither article can occupy the "Moulin Rouge" spot). Also, compare this situation to That's Entertainment! (where there are also punctuation-less topics too). --MASEM (t) 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone go to the redirect? If this is titled (2001 film) they will go straight there from Google or RH search box. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Moulin Rouge" is the most likely term people will use when searching this film; most people do not know either how our disamb system works or that off-hand that the film was made in 2001. "Moulin Rouge" (presently or after this move) takes the reader to the disamb page for that term, which includes all the films and other related topics. Even considering the drop-down box of possible search hits, the proposed title will not stand out as the film they may be looking for, and will still likely end up at the disamb page. Google, yes, might prioritize this version of the film over all other possible names, regardless of what we name the article, but we don't consider that aspect in our naming scheme. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up That's Entertainment!, which led me to this RM and this one. Consensus in both of them was that the exclamation points were sufficient WP:NATURAL disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle, prefer Moulin Rouge (2001 film), as the exclamation point really doesn't stand up to MOS:TM. Do you scream every time you speak the name of the film? --BDD (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case, however, Moulin Rouge! should remain as a redirect to this film, the only usage that uses an exclamation point. It's very unlikely that someone searching for this term is looking for anything else. So to clarify, I only support this on MOS:TM grounds, and would oppose the proposal as written. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) so that the disambiguation doesn't depend on the exclamation mark (at least not entirely). Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) might also be OK, but BDD's point about MOS:TM seems valid (especially considering IIO's remark that the exclamation mark is not consistently present in reliable sources). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Is this not the primary topic for Moulin Rouge if we disregard the "!"? Tentative mild Full oppose. Red Slash 05:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No, "Moulin Rouge" is reasonably fairly the name of a well-known movie that is not this one, as well as a real place; no one of these (including this film) stand out as the primary topic. --MASEM (t) 06:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. My second question: who in the world is going to search for any other Moulin Rouge by typing in "Moulin Rouge!"? (For the proposer or a supporter to answer, obviously.) Red Slash 02:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Disambiguation is a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Geez, I didn't realize that the suggested target was with the "!", making the specific move even more inappropriate. There is a small bit of logic to move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) (transforming the "!" to the disabm. phrase on the basis that the title, with "!" may not be the most common name) but retaining the "!" and disamb is absolutely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support name as per BDD. --Huh39291 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. Okay, it appears we have consensus not to move to Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) (with the exclamation mark). We need to determine whether to move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) or leave it at Moulin Rouge!.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus like that. See votes by BarrelProof and Huh39291. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) per MOS:TM since we should avoid special characters. Fine with having Moulin Rouge! redirect there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The "!" is not a special character, though, in light of the most. It is punctuation as part of the title, and as there's no other "Moulin Rouge!" name, no need to move. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Moulin Rouge! (2001 film). Strongly oppose move to Moulin Rouge (2001 film) or to any title without "!". "Moulin Rouge" without the exclamation mark is simply incorrect. -Moscow Connection (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Moulin Rouge! (2001 film). MOS:FOLLOW refers to considerably more egregious examples than using a simple "!" in the title, so that needs to stay. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To Moscow Connection and Papyrus's points above, "Moulin Rouge! (2001 film)" is a completely unnecessary disambiguated title. There is no other work named "Moulin Rouge!" to require this type of furthering disambiguation and thus improper. Moving to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)" is at least reasonable. --MASEM (t) 07:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I read everyone's comments before casting my !vote. I disagree entirely with the points you mention which is why I !voted the way I did. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • But this goes against WP:PRECISE ("Moulin Rouge!" is precise enough). --MASEM (t) 08:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

To quote Red Slash, "who in the world is going to search for any other Moulin Rouge by typing in "Moulin Rouge!"? I believe a disambiguating title is necessary and that it should contain a "!". Therefore, I believe Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) is the way to go and I'm unlikely to be swayed from this opinion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The article, right now, sits at "Moulin Rouge!", so yes, someone searching on "Moulin Rouge!" will land exactly on this page (no redirects) and if they search on "Moulin Rouge" they will go through the disambiguation page. It is precise enough without having to add "(2001 film)" to this name. If you did add it, now someone searching on "Moulin Rouge!" will go through a redirect to get to this page, and that's what we want to avoid. --MASEM (t) 08:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. I already stated that I've already read everyone's opinions (that includes yours) and that I'm unlikely to change mine. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• At least I'm saving the article from being moved to an incorrect title (without the exclamation mark). As for "(2001 film)", it can't be helped cause there are similar discussions (look: Talk:Wonderful World!!#Requested move, Talk:Happiness?#Requested move) and almost everyone agrees on the idea that punctuation marks are not enough for disambiguation... If I were the only person to decide, I would probably prefer to leave the article where it is now... --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Those haven't closed yet. Ones that have closed that show that it is unnecessary to disamb further include That's Entertainment!, That's Entertainment! (song) (the song from that film) [Talk:That's Entertainment (The Jam song)#Requested move] , and Scandalous! [Talk:Scandalous!#Requested move]. The ones you point to all have the same problem - the punctuation is a natural disambiguation and thus further disambiguation is not needed. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• But what can I do? I think the page will be moved anyway (and all the Japanese songs too cause there isn't enough people to defend them), so I'm just choosing the least evil of the available options. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, on those other ones, it is fair that the inclusion of the punctuation is not consistent enough to consider it integral to the title (whereas here, it's pretty clearly consistent). So it is reasonable on those to ask if the punctuated version is clearly the common name. Even if we took that logic here, that the punctuation is inconsistent, then the move target should be "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)", but that's not what is being supported. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• If the punctuation is consistent, then the exclamation mark can't be removed. If some people think that the exclamation mark doesn't disambiguate the title enough for an average person, why not add "(2001 movie)"? By the way, I think all the five cases are completely the same and the randomness of the outcomes only shows how everything is Wikipedia is amateur and should not be taken seriously. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• We aren't adding the disamb parts of titles for the reader's sake, its to avoid naming conflicts on WP. The disamb should be clear to distinguish between the various options if disambig is needed (so if the title was just "Moulin Rouge", we would need to add "(2001 film)" to make it clear from the actual building and the other films of the same name. But when there's no natural naming conflict to start, the guidelines say to avoid disambig. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know anymore... I also thought the way you do, but people on the Japanese music-related discussions convinced me that I was wrong... If you really care, you should start a discussion about it somewhere else... For example, on the talk page of the disambiguation rules. I came here by accident, I can't fight 1000 people to save one page (this one)... --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Okay, I've decided to delete my vote in favor of moving and leave only my vote against the title without the exclamation mark. You convinced me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Production

Under the topic "Production" This article states "The movie also features editing that several critics compared to a music video, involving swirling camera motion, loud music, dancing, and frenetic cutting." A more explicit way to describe this statement would be to use the precise film terms. For example "Swirling camera motion"= panning camera motions or "Frenetic cutting"= jump cut editing. Mariaquijano (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear whether that statement came from the liner notes to the Special Edition DVD or a different source. It has been removed and replaced with information from cited sources. Msoul13 (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Postmodern?

Doesn't seem to be a postmodern film based on my reading of Postmodernist film, but I'd welcome other opinions. DonIago (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Information about postmodernism in the film has been added to the article. Msoul13 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Analysis subsection focuses exclusively on the interpretation of Moulin Rouge! as a postmodern film—no other frame of analysis is mentioned. It seems to be based entirely on the views of three individuals: Mina Yang, Kathryn Conner Bennett, Marsha Kinder; it uses needless and confusing jargon, and is quite long at almost 600 words.

The Analysis subsection is oddly narrow in scope and way too long. I think it needs to be heavily pruned or removed. Ehwuhruh (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

These are valid points. Relevant template messages have been added to the Analysis section. Msoul13 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the templates are really fair to the article. It wouldn't surprise me if postmodern analysis is the only kind of academic analysis the film has gotten due to time period, and it provides links for most of the 'jargon.' Three individuals seems plenty to me to establish that this kind of analysis is common in the academic sphere. If nobody objects, I'm going to remove all the templates except perhaps the one for length. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'll have to object to removing the templates at least until other editors express agreement that they are no longer appropriate. I'll happily consider striking my objection at that time, but I don't feel this is a situation where the templates should be removed based on the opinions of a single editor. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

True, but if nobody corrects it to anything I think it's better to remove the templates than leave it up indefinitely. Maybe we could take another look at if these templates are valid in a couple weeks? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your rationale here. There's no deadline, and if the templates are there, there's a chance editors will address the issues (or join this discussion), while if they're not there then there's much less of a chance that matters will improve. DonIago (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel that templates that are left indefinitely without a plan to work on them are just clutter that detracts from the page, especially in controversial cases like this.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 07:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You could work to resolve the issues rather than simply removing the templates? Alternately, I already said I'd have no issues with removing them if other editors agreed that they're no longer appropriate, so you do have a path forward here. DonIago (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The Analysis section has been revised and condensed and the previous template messages have been removed. Msoul13 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Moulin Rouge! → Moulin Rouge! (2001 film) – This "No consensus" requested move needs to be revisited at least once every four years (see "Requested move" from December 2013, above). The inconsistently-applied exclamation point symbol "!" is insufficient to disambiguate this film title from Moulin Rouge (1928 film), Moulin Rouge (1934 film) and Moulin Rouge (1952 film) as well the non-film title headers at the Moulin Rouge (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Again, same as above, the "!" with the disambiguation is unnecessary. I would weakly support the move to "Moulin Rouge (2001 film)", though even with the song's use in the Olympics, some still list the film as "Moulin Rouge!", hence only weak support. I'd rather not think there's enough to move this. --Masem (t) 19:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support because Google Books shows both Moulin Rouge! and Moulin Rouge in reference to this film, which shows that the exclamation mark is not universally included in secondary sources. Even this film periodical's recent article does not use it when mentioning the film. With this in mind, when typing Moulin Rouge in Wikipedia's search box in the upper right as seen here, which item is the 2003 film is not obvious to someone who may have learned about the film's name without its exclamation mark. I see it as no big deal to de-emphasize the purported distinction that the exclamation mark makes and to instead add the relevant disambiguation term. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposed title is less concise, less natural and overly precise (WP:AT). There's no point to the move if Moulin Rouge! were just to continue to redirect to the proposed title. If the film's title does have a exclamation point, the current article title is not in conflict with any other title and a hatnote is sufficient disambiguation. If the film's title does not use an exclamation mark, the article should be at Moulin Rouge (2001 film). See Talk:Hate Me! for a somewhat similar case and interesting discussion. Station1 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If consensus can coalesce around moving Moulin Rouge! → Moulin Rouge (2001 film), I would support such a move. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The "!" is in the title and moving it to a page without the "!" means the proper title is not reflected. Shadow007 (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly for the reasons given by Station1, although it is a weak oppose. There is no enough information about how the general knowledge of the "!" in this film's title to justify changing when the "!" does act as a disambiguation. Shadow007 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:CRITERIA, "!" is insufficient to disambiguate. WP:SMALLDETAILS is a relevant guideline, and it gives the Airplane vs Airplane! example, but in that case the two articles are fundamentally different types of subjects - one is a vehicle, one is a film. And searchers given those two choses can easily determine which article meets their needs. In THIS case, it is a film, and so are the other articles it is ambiguous with. I don't think any reasonable searcher who isn't already very knowledgeable about it would find this article on the first try. They would very naturally click through the other (YYYY film) first because, and might totally overlook the punctuation thinking its another kind of topic altogether. We must err on the side of convenience for sake of the readers. Keep in mind also we have to disambiguate not just from the other films, but also the soundtrack article for this film Moulin Rouge! Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film, which, though using a subtitle for natural disambiguation, can also reasonably be called simply "Moulin Rouge!" too. -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

On that last point, even if the soundtrack albums can be called "Moulin Rouge!", the film is still the primary topic for that title. [1] - Station1 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comments. The "!" in the name of this well-known film differentiates it from the other productions and edges it into stand-alone common name status among similarly named films. In fact the number of readers who seek it out every day is enough so that a hatnote on the Moulin Rouge page seems justified (I've added the hatnote). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support the ! is not consistently used in all sources, so adding the year is helpful. If being helpful to readers is an objective? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, without the "!", this page would be by far the primary for the name "Moulin Rouge". So the stand-alone title has that added justification. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That is debatable, but even if it is the case, it is not enough reason not to use the "!" or to move as proposed. Shadow007 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, adding the year would be "helpful". Adding "Oscar-nominated 2001 Best Picture film starring Oscar-nominated Best Actress Nicole Kidman" would be even more helpful. But that's not how we roll on WP. Generally, we use the name of the subject as the title, and only disambiguate when that same exact name is used by another subject covered on WP, and even then only when the subject in question is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. Here we have a reasonably well known Oscar nominated film with a unique WP:COMMONNAME as reflected at imdb. There is no need to disambiguate, and the exclamation mark in the name is a sufficient small detail to distinguish this use from others. --В²C ☎ 17:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The present title provides sufficient disambiguation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

---

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.