Talk:The Swimmer (1968 film)

production

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836264,00.html?promoid=googlep Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis

I am editing the plot synopsis because as I found it, it was rather ponderous, and badly written. At present, its length does not violate any guideline (the guideline in this case is a suggestion, and there are hundreds if not thousands of longer synopses on Wikipedia).

If anyone disagrees with my edits, it should be on a point by point basis--none of them violate any guidelines, so guidelines should not be invoked--though frankly, some of the things I've cut out skate perilously close to violating the 'no original research' guideline. It's not our job to be film critics, let alone social critics. Xfpisher (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's a case to be made for why the synopsis for this film must be in violation of the guideline, and to claim "it's just a suggestion" while technically true strikes me as poor form. As for other articles having longer synopses, WP:OTHERSTUFF - that's a case for working on them, not creating additional exceptions.

I've trimmed the plot summary to 564 words. You're welcome to add material if you'd like, but I see no reason why it needs to be over 700 words; please do not expand it beyond that point without a consensus to do so. DonIago (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll leave it alone for now, but if I do add anything, it will still come in well under 700 words. Xfpisher (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect claim

This is demonstrably not Joan Rivers' first movie — that is a cinematic urban myth. It is her debut in a dramatic role, but she made her film debut three years earlier in Once Upon a Coffeehouse. Here are the end-credits, in a screengrab. This article appears to be the victim of cherrypicked sources to promote a knowingly false statement. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae is drawing his own conclusion from external evidence. On the one hand he's got a screen grab saying that someone named "Joan Rivers" was in a 1965 film, Once Upon a Coffee Time, IMDB backs that up - but it lists it under "Self" on her page, not under "Actress". On the other hand, as the article cites, the TCM article on The Swimmer explicitly says that that film was Rivers' film debut.

Now Tenebra would like to synthesize what he's got and say that The Swimmer was Rivers' second film -- but he's got no source that actually says that, all he's got is WP:OR, which is not allowed. As I have said to him (this is the third time), what he needs is a source which says that Once Upon a Coffee House was her film debut.

Or, if Tenebrae's of a mind to compromise, teh wording could be changed to say something on the order of "it was her official film debut, although she had appeared as herself in Once Upon a Coffee House three years earlier." I think that would be acceptable - except that he'd better hope that All Movie has her listed,because we can't use IMDB as a source (its been deemed unreliable) and TCM mangled her name. BMK (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys need some consensus here, and here's my opinion: BMK is ostensibly correct. You can't combine two sources in that way, Tenebrae, it's technically Original Research. Until you can find a WP:RS that says explicitly that Joan Rivers was in Once Upon a Coffeehouse as her first film, you can't make these changes. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to create light out of heat. While I continue to think there's a larger point to be made about knowingly inserting false information because of a source's inaccuracy, I did find an WP:RS source: An analysis of the movie by the well-established film writer Tasha Robinson at The A.V. Club: http://www.avclub.com/article/1965s-ihootenanny-a-go-goi-teaches-us-that-boats-a-88278. Noting that the film Hootenanny A Go-Go is "Also known as: Once Upon A Coffeehouse", the article "1965’s Hootenanny A Go-Go teaches us that boats and folk songs are the key to getting lucky" (Nov 5, 2012) notes:

Can easily be distinguished by: A couple of songs performed by comedy act Jim, Jake & Joan. The Joan is Joan Rivers in her first film role, looking peppy and caffeinated as she brays out counterpoint lines to the more tuneful guys. Their initial number, riffing on the day’s news, seems inspired by Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner’s routines, but less funny.

Additionally, the article includes a clip of the movie in which Joan Rivers and partners perform. These things taken together would certainly seem to be as verifiable and reliable as could be.

I'm fine with BMKs wording, although "official" is inaccurate — there's no governing or officiating body. "dramatic-role debut" or similar would be accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about something on the order of "although it's said to be River's film debut etc etc (emphasis not intended for article). BMK (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's what I just put in:

The Swimmer was comedienne Joan Rivers' film debut as an actress – she had appeared as herself three years earlier in Once Upon a Coffe House. In The Swimmer, her short scene...

Is this acceptable? BMK (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. I'm going to go in and correct the title and add the cite. I believe "film debut as an actress" should have a cite, which I think goes along with what you were saying earlier. In the meantime, to avoid contention over that, I'll do the title and cite only right now. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the AV Club cite you provided above, but put it at the end of the section with the TC< cite BMK (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back here after my edits. I'm not up for it now, but you can see, surely, that the footnote formatting is way off — there shouldn't be those bracketed-number links. That said, it's late and that seems like work for another day. Incidentally, I do love this movie myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was you! I just skimmed the post and didn't realize who posted it. See? We really are on the same page once everything's calmed down! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

As long as we have some eyes here, can someone gnomish please try to clean up the references? With all those Blu-ray cites, I feel certain that some of them must be dupes, and the naked links are annoying. I'd do it, but I do't have the energy for it right now -- although I'l probably do it some other time if no one jumps in. BMK (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for soundtrack

Even without an image, an infobox could be useful. However, it contains just a release date and record label, and it interferes with alignment of text. A summary or not, a reader can understand text without a soundtrack infobox. Well, there's already a main film infobox. --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not interferes with the "alighnment of text" on my screen. BMK (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading MOS:INFOBOX, I don't see encourage or discouragement on infoboxes. If alignment is not a problem, then something is wrong with the infobox. I must figure it out somehow. I can read the text just fine without the box. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should determine if anyone else beside you is having this problem. BMK (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came her because of the 3O request. I don't know if there is a better venue to than that to generate some traffic to take a look, so I won't "officially respond" or remove the 3O posting. The two infoboxes do not interfere with my text alignment using Chrome on a laptop, or on my android phone. Scr★pIron^IV 19:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not seeing any disruption caused by the infoboxes on either IE or Chrome. DonIago (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot revert

@Beyond My Ken: Please explain why you are reverting my plot edits claiming you feel the cast should be reinserted, when the edits you are reverting included changes beyond simply removing the cast from the Plot section. I would note that the cast already appears in its own section and that past discussions at WT:FILM have indicated that it's acceptable to remove the cast from the Plot section in such cases. Did you simply not notice the extent of my edit? If you did notice the other edits, I would like a justification as to why you feel the other edits should be reverted as well. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting for two reasons: (1) Having the name of the actor who played a character in the plot section is done in an extremely large number of film plot sections (regardless of what past discussions have said), and that is the case because it's very helpful to the reader, who is presented with full information when reading the plot, and does not have to switch back and forth from the plotsection to the cast section and back to the plot section and then the cast section again, over and over, simply to get an understanding of what's happening in the film. The benefits are obvious, and the removal of the actos' names does a disservice to the reader. (2) Your other changes were not improvements, the text was better before. If you disagree, please justify your changes to a long-standing plot section, and tell us how your re-wording improved the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prior plot summary was a violation of WP:FILMPLOT, as I said in my edit summary (which I'm sure you read before reverting me, of course). I grant that the current summary is in compliance with that guideline, but have asked at WT:FILM for other editors to weigh in on which version of the summary is preferable. DonIago (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, and is neither binding nor mandatory. It's long-standing Wiki policy that WikiProjects may not enforce mandatory requirements for the articles they claim under their purview. Also, as I pointed out there, your notification at WT:FILM was not neutral -- as it is required to be by WP:CANVASSING (a mandatory policy) -- and in it, you managed to insult me personally, violating WP:Casting aspersions. Please resolve the latter situation by striking out the offending statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with FILMPLOT, why not discuss it there? In my experience, most editors consider it best practice, guideline or otherwise, and you should have a compelling reason for ignoring it. I have not seen a reason thus far. As to the rest, I've already replied at WT:FILM so I don't know why you're reiterating it here, especially as it's not germane to the discussion. DonIago (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with your edit, which is why we're discussing it here, where you made the edit. FILMPLOT is not mandatory, and therefore is not a consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a consideration to you. We will see what other editors have to say on the subject. DonIago (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that you refused you strike out your abusive comment about my editing on WT:FILM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed. If you'd like to discuss a matter occurring there, you are more than welcome to discuss it there. DonIago (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. I prefer to discuss your egregious violation of WP:Casting aspersions, and your refusal to withdraw your comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that escalated quickly. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you insult people, and refuse to withdraw the insult, that's frequently the case. I'd suggest re-thinking your approach to editing disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intention, but it appears that discussion regarding the question of whether cast members should be in the plot summary for films in general is currently occurring here. I would advise editors with opinions on this matter to therefore comment there. DonIago (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable, since only members of WikiProject Film are likely to participate there, and the discussion needs to be open and available by the general editing community. The discussion needs to take place here, as the article talk page is the accepted venue for consensus discussions about changes to this article, not the talk page of a WikiProject, which has neither de facto or de jure authority over the articles that the Project claims as within their area of interest - that is the Wikipedia norm, back up by ArbCom decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my idea BMK. If you have a problem with it, you're welcome to say so there. You already pinged me once for coming across as non-neutral, so I hope you can understand my reluctance to risk digging that hole any deeper. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to suggest wording to have me put there, I will go ahead and do so if I am comfortable with what you feel would be appropriate. DonIago (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm simply putting you on notice that there can be no consensus about what occurs on this article from a discussion not held on this article's talk page. Since you're the one trying to achieve a consensus, I suggest you do what you think is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so willing to collaborate. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what 'guideline' means in respect of the MoS. Whilst it is not mandatory for editors to follow the MoS in every respect when adding material to an article, if another editor makes a change to align the article with the MoS that should be treated as an improvement and not reverted, unless there is a consensus otherwise. In this particular case the plot section would be improved by removing the references to the principal actors' names in brackets; these are already mentioned just above in the lead section, just below in the cast section, just adjacent in the image of the poster for the film, and Lancaster is mentioned for a fourth time in the infobox. The reader really doesn't need his name referred to yet again in prose that is supposed to be about the storyline. MapReader (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but not the way it works. A guideline is just that, a guideline. Guidelines are not mandatory, and ArbCom has ruled on several occasions that they cannot be "enforced" as if they were. That make MOS edits just like any other edit on Wikipedia, subject to reversion followed by a consensus discussion. You will find nothing whatsoever at WP:MOS which says otherwise. In fact, the top of the page says:

[MOS] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

(The same wording appears at the top of WP:FILM.) Note, please "simply generally accepted", "should attempt to follow" and "best treated with common sense". All of these underline the reality that MOS is not mandatory and cannot be enforced as if it were mandatory -- once one starts treating a guideline as if it were a mandatory policy, it erases the difference between the two, and guidelines become policy without ever being approved as such by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw the request for comment at WP:FILM. I feel that including the names of the cast within the plot summary doesn't benefit this article or the reader. The primary purpose of the plot is to simply and neutrally summarise the events of the film. Including the name of the actors of certain characters doesn't do anything to assist that, it adds additional clutter to the plot and breaks the flow of the narrative. I don't agree with Beyond My Ken's statement that the reader, who is presented with full information when reading the plot, and does not have to switch back and forth from the plotsection to the cast section .... simply to get an understanding of what's happening in the film as the switching to the cast section does nothing to assist their understanding of the plot of the film. As a side note, the other copy-edit of the text was an improvement, 'having several experiences' is unwieldy and unnecessary. Scribolt (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of the plot section is -- just like all the material in the article -- ro improve the reader's understanding of the film. By having the plot section without the names of th actors playing the part, youi're forcing the reader to read the play, and whenever they come to the name of a character, siwtch top the cast section to see who played the plot, and then return to the plot section to continue until another character's name appears, when the reader has to check the cast again, etc. We're making it unnecessarily harder for the reader, thus vioilating the precept that "It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia." We don't write articles for the hell of it, or to follow guidelines, we write them to convey information to the reader, and forcing them to take in the information in an inefficient and annoying way, we do a disservice to the reader, simply for the sake of following a rule. This is antithetical to our purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're swimming against the tide on this one; the second time in a week that I have found you trying to discount the consensus represented by our MoS. Note the bit about "attempting to follow", which is what other editors are trying to do here. MapReader (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your point that the purpose of the article is improve the readers understanding of the film. Where we differ is that I believe that structuring film articles into sections that focus on specific aspects of the film makes the article more readable and useful, and this is not always best served by repeating information. I can point out many other pieces of information that the plot summary section does not contain (directors, cinematographers, information relating to adaptation from source material etc.) because the purpose of the plot section is to describe the plot. I do not believe the reader is forced to check the cast list to see who played a part, any more than they are forced to refer to any of the other non-plot related aspects of the film. If you read a plot summary and need to cross-reference who played the part immediately, and that's fine and I understand why this way of writing the article might annoy you. I personally don't, and find the addition of the actors names unnecessary reduces readability, and also annoying. Please don't suggest that those of us who have a differing opinion on this to you are guilty of not considering the reader for purely the sake of rules. I suspect that many of the readers fall into both these camps, but I cannot speak for them and neither can you. Also, I'm not sure if you were referring to me above, but at no point did I refer to doing so because it's a rule. I gave input as to why I consider the removal of the actors details from the plot to be a benefit to this article, as did MapReader incidentally, although you didn't appear to respond to the substantive parts of that comment and addressed the MOS instead. Scribolt (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While guidelines are not at the same level as policies, they represent a general community consensus. Of course there will always be exceptions, but I'd argue that the onus is on the editor making the exception to gain consensus when challenged. Without getting too far into the weeds on that point, it doesn't appear there is anything specifically mentioned at WP:FILMPLOT that discourages actor names in the plot summary. In fact, a link exists at that guideline directing readers to WP:How to write a plot summary, where it actually encourages the practice:

"As key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them..."

So despite what discussions have taken place at WT:FILM or elsewhere, the guideline and its supplemental help article do not appear to be against the practice, at least not explicitly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:How to write a plot summary is an essay, making it even less "binding" than a guideline. I'll make a suggestion that that essay be updated though, as I don't think it reflects broader consensus at this time. DonIago (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, but an essay that is linked from a guideline tends to hold more weight than essays that are not linked from guidelines, as they tend to represent a higher level of consensus. The emphasis here is that we can't simply point to WP:FILMPLOT to explain why actor names shouldn't be in plot summaries. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the information in the essay doesn't reflect current consensus, then the essay is the problem, not the consensus. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this discussion began about a supposed consensus that doesn't appear to be reflected at MOS:FILM, let alone that essay, yet it seemed like we were being told it was. I can understand why Beyond My Ken or any other editor would challenge it at this point, considering how many film articles out there have the names mentioned and the fact that there is no policy or guideline against it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's unfortunate that the consensus as I understand it has unfortunately never been encoded anywhere, but there have been multiple discussions of this matter at WT:FILM in the past.

In any case, currently we're getting a local consensus as to whether the plot is better with or without the cast in the plot, so hopefully that will be satisfactory. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To restate what I wrote in the other discussion: "Plot sections are for summarising the plot. Cast sections are for listing the cast. There's no need to put cast in the plot." Beyond My Ken, I know it's painful when you think the consensus is wrong (I've been in that boat more than once), but I think it's time to give up the ghost here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an WP:RFC would be the best route, to get the input of non-Film Project editors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no additional commentary here in over a week, and the consensus appears to me that the edits I made were reasonable, I will plan to reinstate them within the next few days unless additional issues are brought up. Thanks everyone for your thoughts on the matter. If any editor opposes the reinstatement of my edits regardless of the course of the above discussion, they are welcome to pursue dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears only 1 editor was opposed to the change, while a few voiced support, and a couple (including myself) that were neutral and didn't weigh in. While I wouldn't call it a strong consensus, Beyond My Ken can opt to begin an RfC if needed to solicit additional feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I completely agree with BMK in this matter.

"We don't write articles for the hell of it, or to follow guidelines, we write them to convey information to the reader, and forcing them to take in the information in an inefficient and annoying way, we do a disservice to the reader, simply for the sake of following a rule."

This conveys so much of my disdain for the practice of, e.g., refusing to countenance an infobox in long and detailed articles (though naturally, that's another discussion). Harfarhs (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recorded the film and watched it yesterday. Then I read the article and corrected an error in the plot summary after first rewinding and rewatching the ending to ensure that I was correct. Ned doesn't look through the window. He tries to open the door while banging on it. The camera moves left to a broken window. We see the inside of the deserted house while Ned is still banging on the door. The closing shot is of Ned collapsing in the doorway. My edit was reverted with the comment that it's "better not to break fourth wall in Plot". If someone wants to reword it they're welcome so long as it's factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc2002 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessary to state specifically what the film viewer sees that Ned does not. In the end the point is that the house is deserted, yes? DonIago (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is "a point", there are several and one is to be factually correct. Ned doesn't look through the window. Perhaps this is significant, that we can see what Ned can't or won't. How about "As Ned tries vainly to open the locked door the camera peers through a broken window. The house has been emptied of furniture and appears to have been abandoned for some time."Jjc2002 (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Jjc2002[reply]

I don't feel plot summaries should violate the fourth wall in most cases, and I don't feel this is one of those cases where an exception is merited. Sorry. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last suggestion. The preceding sentence already tells us that ‘his house is locked and deserted, with several windows broken’. How about either simply scrapping the last sentence entirely or replacing it with something like, “Ned repeatedly tries in vain to open the door before slumping to the ground in the doorway’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc2002 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2021

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: Not moved. Concern that the differences are too small to make it effective to search different entries, and to retain disambiguation. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– An edit on October 29, 2018 {the reference in that edit summary is to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Swimmer (2013 film)} and an edit three weeks ago, on May 1, reverting the 2018 edit, has highlighted the fact that there has never been an RM to establish consensus regarding disambiguation among these titles. The edit summary on May 1 based the move from "(film)" to "(1968 film)" on WP:SMALLDETAILS, while each of the three redirects — The Swimmer (film), Swimmers (film) and Swimmer (film) — flows to the film with that title, rather than to the Swimmer (disambiguation) page. It may be also noted that The Swimmers (upcoming film) had been created on April 20 and was moved to The Swimmers (2022 film) on May 1, at the same time as the moves of The Swimmer (film) to The Swimmer (1968 film), Swimmers (film) to Swimmers (2005 film) and Swimmer (film) to Swimmer (2012 film). Ultimately, there may well be consensus that clarity supports keeping all main headers in their present form, possibly with some tweaks. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opppose - plurals and THE are not enough to sufficiently disambiguate these titles. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Netoholic and WP:SMALLDETAILS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, while the nomination noted that, as of this writing, The Swimmer (film) redirects to The Swimmer (1968 film), Swimmers (film) redirects to Swimmers (2005 film), Swimmer (film) redirects to Swimmer (2012 film) and The Swimmers (film) is a redlink, it may be also noted that The Swimmer redirects to Swimmer (disambiguation), Swimmers redirects to Swimming, Swimmer redirects to Swimming (sport) and The Swimmers is not a redirect, but the main title header of an article delineating an American rock band.

Perhaps the rock band should have been included as the fifth entry in this nomination — The Swimmers → The Swimmers (band) and, since The Swimmer redirects to Swimmer (disambiguation), so should The Swimmers. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this move fails, I'll fix the redirects with AWB. --Gonnym (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - plurals and THE are not enough to sufficiently disambiguate these titles. While we welcome attempts to hide articles and confuse readers, this is needlessly unhelpful :) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As mentioned above plurals and THE are not enough to sufficiently disambiguate these titles. Makes it very hard to search. Gharouni^Talk 03:31, 25 May 2021 (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.