Talk:? (2011 film)

Update needed
The article says that it will compete in the Indonesian Film Festival in October. An article used as a source says the winners will be announced November 27. What happened? Did it win anyhing? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Best Featured Article Ever
I LOVE the lead for this article as today's featured article! Absolutely great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

--Cogniac (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly made me click through.


 * Me too, although it looked like a browser error. 50.39.110.236 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I liked the lead too; it made me click as well. :) —Lowellian (reply) 03:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Easiest lead ever! Thief12 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm very much glad everyone's enjoying this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is very attention grabbing, look forward to seeing the stats it generates, will certainly be way up in the WP:5000 and perhaps crack the WP:TOP25.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it, it might be one of the lowest visted ever main page leads... which is fine, because it means that people fell for it. Everybody thought it was a browswer error.74.124.47.11 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 220k hits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, that makes it the 13th most-viewed featured article of all time. Prioryman (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Noticed. It's nice... although a couple AFD articles ranked higher up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very nice and creative lead for April Fools=D. Smallman12q (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * + 1 that came here for the title. It's really nice! - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this nonsense?
Wikipedia is supposed to be of utmost professionalism and formality(Or at least it should try to be). Partaking in silly events such as April fools day undermines its academic authority. Having a question mark as the featured article on the main page just doesn't look right. It's sort of like the journal Nature having a photograph of Barney on its front cover as an April Fools Day joke. It's stupid. You have to stay consistent. If you want to "celebrate" April Fools Day, do it in a more colloquial setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there 99, this page is for discussing improvements to the article ?. If you wish to discuss the main page and its content, please see Talk:Main Page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Every link on the main page is legit. I see no problem. PurpleChez (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't share the vision you describe. I think wikipedia should be sourced and worded like the utmost professionalism and formality, but there's no reason to forget it's edited by humans, and a good number of them, and a bit of silliness now and then seems quite healthy to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brant.merrell (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate article that happens to have an amusingly novel name. It's an incredible stretch to start arguing that it delegitimizes the encyclopedia. You'd have to take yourself far less seriously than wikipedia self-evidently does to care about this level of "silliness".70.51.115.177 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cool brah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.106.145 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually thought the same thing as the original poster, which is why I came here. At that, is it possible to include a picture, as to prevent confusion? When I fist came to the main page, I thought something was desperately wrong. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I don't see what's the issue. It grabbed everyone's attention, which I think it's the purpose. This reminds me of Einstein sticking his tongue to the camera. Does his moment of "silliness" undermines his scientific credibility? Thief12 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First off... do not edit my post again. Second of all, I do believe we are supposed to be indenting here right? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Every year Wikipedia features a curious but perfectly legitimate article on April 1. And every year someone will be outraged by it. Manning (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lost Episode
Shouldn't there be a disambiguation to the Lost episode with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.224.4 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The article's title is already disambiguated because it says "? (film)". Now, if you write "?" on Wikipedia's search, then it will take you to all the possible meanings of the symbol. Thief12 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It takes you to the article about a question mark. From there, you have a link to the disambigation page. Provided, the link should be placed here as well. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean

? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need, because the most basic search should be for the "question mark" article, which then leads you to the disambiguation page with all the other possible alternatives. There's no need to disambiguate any further. Thief12 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, but there are alternative views. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2024

 * 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. – robertsky (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

? (film) → ? (2011 film) – Dab from ?: A Question Mark. The film with the subtitle is more popular. This is a test case for Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). * Pppery * it has begun... 01:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A Question Mark has 1,195 views compared with only 313[|%3F:_A_Question_Mark] for the 2011 one and subtitles are often omitted and the image doesn't appear to even show the words "A Question Mark" and the "?" is large so its likely both are called "?".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Film/Southeast Asian cinema task force, WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Indonesia have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

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.
 * Support per nom. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support current title should point to the disambiguation page -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The subtitle in ?: A Question Mark only disambiguates that page from this one, not this page from that one. Each page needs adequate disambiguation within its own title. If this were a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it could be adequate disambiguation. But even without considering WP:INCDAB's heightened standard for treating a partially disambiguated title as a primary topic, this is not a primary topic per above. SilverLocust 💬 03:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)