Talk:Serial film

Homonculus link

I'm trying to find out about the German movie / serial Homonculus, The Wik link in this (Movie serial) article directs me to the general article on "Homunculs," which only has a passing ref like the one here. The German Wik also does not seem to have any-thing on this film, which a German book on SF calls the mother of German black film style. 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Machinima

I have to question the prominent mention of Machinima, as opposed to countless other forms of serials that exist on the internet, and in the indie film scene, today.--216.86.114.184 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fad for it at the time. The talk of "downloading" films dates that paragraph to the mid-2000s, that and the idea that the internet can only support five-minute-films. Nowadays people either say CGI or animation. There was a concerted attempt on Wikipedia to make the word "machinima" a thing, as with e.g. sousveillance. It didn't take off, it obviously wasn't going to take off, and now someone has to get rid of it. 80.189.208.115 (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

The name of this article should be changed from Serial film to Serial (film).

Last Ever Serial?!

This is In-Correct. Serials are still being made. Examples are Lolo The Penguin, and also The Matrix. In-Correct (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix is a regular film series.★Trekker (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A note on grammar

Strictly speaking, the term "serial" is the singular form of the word "series". Exceptions have been made to distinguish the term "serial", being a specific medium in itself, from the term "series" as used in American English to refer to a television show. Although the plural form "serials" can be considered acceptable for this purpose of distinction, it is grammatically incorrect and whenever possible this article should strive to refer to a serial in singular form, so as to maintain distinction while still being grammatically correct. 68.96.52.9 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go ahead and dedicate your life to tinkering with the word "serial", be my guest. Go on. No-one will help you. Show us what you can do. 80.189.208.115 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 April 2019

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 section.

No consensus. See excellent args and rebuttals below; however, since there have been two relists and after nearly a month with only a small amount of participation, general agreement escapes us. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can strengthen their args and in a few months attempt again to garner consensus for this title change. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 15:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that Serial film be renamed and moved to Film serial.

The discussion has been closed.

Links: current log • target log

Serial film → Film serial – To be WP:CONSISTENT with the main category Category:Film serials and almost all sub-categories, which use "film serials", as well as List of film serials and List of film serials by studio. This is also used in books about the topic, such as Film Serials and the American Cinema, 1910-1940 and Encyclopedia of American Film Serials. This is also more WP:CONSISTENT with Film series. Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we do not name articles just to be internally consistent with Wikipedia navigation schemes, so the move rationale is flawed as it doesn't cite a reason per WP:TITLES. According to Google Ngrams comparison, the terms are just about equally common, but with "serial film" just a bit ahead at last measure. There are just as many reference works that use "serial film" as "film serial" to describe the same genre. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You should brush up on your policies as WP:CONSISTENT is one of the criteria. --Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - CONSISTENT means to handle naming of topics similarly, such as using the same disambiguator. It syas consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles and so Wikipedia navigation (lists/categories) has no bearing. If you want those to be internally-consistent, then another way to accomplish that is to rename them to match this main article. We don't violate WP:COMMONNAME just to match Wikipedia categories - that's backwards. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly neutral, but if I had to lean one way or the other it would be a weak support. Consistency is a fine thing and I think it would be best to settle on one or the other. In addition to the publications mentioned by the nom there is also Distributing Silent Film Serials and Great Movie Serials, and as far as I can tell around a third of pages linking to the serial film article do so via the film serial redirect. On the other hand, there is also Serial Film Stars: A Biographical Dictionary, 1912-1956 and the current title of the article has been stable for over 10 years since it was moved from serial (film). I don't have strong feelings either way though. PC78 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Although serials are films, the key stand-alone term is "serial", used as a noun, not as an adjective. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That same logic applies to the current name, and in fact "serial" is far more often an adjective than "film" is in common language (and vice versa). But anyway, grammar rules aren't part of WP:TITLES. We go by WP:COMMONNAME, even if you think that name is grammatically wrong (without proof) or even spelled wrong. We don't apply "corrections" to make them "right". -- Netoholic @ 08:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In texts pertaining to film serials / serial films, most film literature uses the single noun "serial". It is an immediately understood term to anyone versed in film terminology and, even for those who are not, once an explanation is made, "serial", in its noun form, persists in any film discussion as the key term. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence to back up those statements, but I've given contradictory evidence above. This issue is not as clear-cut as it seems from your perspective. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 2 April 2019 (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.