Talk:Adaptation (film)

Renaming to proper title "Adaptation." (1)
Should this page not be titled Adaptation., and not redirected to Adaptation (movie) (no period)?


 * Adaptation. is up for rfd (Redirects_for_deletion) so that Adaptation (movie) can be moved. Preferred instead of cut/paste as to preserve the history. Cburnett 18:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To fit with Wikipedia style, this page should remain at Adaptation (movie) and Adaptation. should be deleted. Wikipedia pages don't use periods normally. And the page Adaptation is a disambiguation page. Amelia Hunt 23:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I now understand that there is a period in the actual movie title, so agree that the page title should reflect that. I support the proposed move. Amelia Hunt 17:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the period isn't for looks but an actual part of the title. Because of confusion on my part and the way things happened (I originally put Adaptation. up for rfd; per Netholic's suggestion I moved it to a page move) so please make sureyou voice your opinion on the WP:RM vote since it's under way. Cburnett 20:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adaptation (movie) &rarr; Adaptation.
Actual movie name is "Adaptation." [with a trailing full stop] and I want to move Adaptation (movie) to Adaptation. as well as saving the history. Adaptation. is a redirect to Adaptation (movie) and I think they should be swapped. As per Netholic's suggestion on the rfd page (Redirects_for_deletion RFD has been removed), I bring the request here. My original intention was delete Adaptation. and then move it.

Again on why. Adaptation (movie) is technically the wrong title since "Adaptation" is not the actual movie name but rather "Adaptation.". This point is why I think the content and history should be moved to the correct page (i.e., Adaptation.) and make Adaptation (movie) a redirect to Adaptation..

As for confusion between "Adaptation" and "Adaptation." (raised on the rfd page) I think a short note can be added to the tops. And there's still Adaptation (movie) to point to the correct article in case someone tries to add an article of a movie entitled "Adaptation" who is unaware the actual title is "Adaptation." So either move the page or delete the redirect that is Adaptation. (RFD has been removed). I'll be content if either happens so that the content about the movie appears under the correct article title. Cburnett 05:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. IMDB says the film is called "Adaptation." including a full stop, so the "(movie)" style of disambig is unnecessary if it's moved to the correct name. (But keep as redirect, as Cburnett pointed out.) Rd232 13:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If I type adaptation into the find box in Wikipedia I expect to find an article about natural selection, not a piece about a movie.  If anything, the biological meaning should be the primary meaning.  At present we have a disambiguation page which I think is acceptable. The movie is given equal billing with two fundamental scientific concepts, which I think is pretty good going, actually. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, you did notice the move is to "Adaptation." (with a trailing period) and not "Adaptation" (sans period)? Your explanation doesn't hint that you do.  Putting in "adaptation" or "Adaptation" will still give you the disambigutation page here: Adaptation. I tried to make this very clear in my explanation and make sure all links are as intended.  Cburnett 00:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't notice the period. I reconsidered.  I asked myself how many people who are interested in the movie would be aware that the period is significant.  I noticed that imdb.com also includes the period in the title (which is rare).  Rottentomatoes, a review site, lists it without the period. Other sites listing it without the period include moviefreak.com, The Guardian, Roger Ebert at Chicago Sun-Times, and  James Berardinelli at Reelreviews.  I stopped looking after that, because if those guys don't list the period it doesn' really matter who else does.  So it seems to me that the only people listing it with the period is imdb, which evidently has a policy of listing movies meticulously according to official title.  It appears, therefore, that it's quite unlikely that most people casually interested in the movie "Adaptation." are going to be aware that its title incorporates a period.  They're going to type in the name without the period and hit the disambig, unless they're wise to Wikipedia ways and tag on "(movie)".  For this reason, I still think that Adaptation (movie) is a more appropriate title.  In this case as in all others we should go by the popular name, not the official name of the movie.  There should be a redirect from adaptation. (with the period) to adaptation (movie), making everybody happy. Oppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the movie "Clerks." too, though in that case Clerks is a redirect. violet/riga (t) 16:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've known the movie as Clerks for well over a decade. I wouldn't want clerks. to be moved to clerks, but neither do I see any a priori reason to move an article just to pander to the typographical eccentricities of the production or distribution companies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that if Adaptation. is either going to contain the article itself or a redirect to Adaptation (movie) (or maybe Adaptation. (movie)]]), then I can see no reason why the page shouldn't have the article itself. It does not suffer from the same problem as If... Jooler 23:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My objection is that the period is a typographical frippery that would make the movie harder to find than it is at adaptation (movie). It isn't important enough that I'd want adaptation. moved to adaptation (movie) if this were the other way around (as with clerks.), but it does weigh in when people are asking for a move in the other direction.  I don't believe we should go out of our way to ape the silliness of the movie industry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * People are no more likely to type "Adapation." than "Adaptation (movie)". Most requests will go through Adaptation anyway. So unless we put the movie there (as primary usage), there's no reason to actively avoid the correct title. (You're not seriously suggesting "silliness" as a criterion in Wikipedia policy, are you?) Rd232 16:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks ok to me. &mdash;Mike 09:50, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's have movies at their official titles when possible. Dbenbenn 16:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, it should be at its official title if possible, and the disambig page will help anyone unaware  of the full stop.  Review/news sites using the name without the proper punctuation doesn't mean we should copy their mistake.  The dvd case has a full stop, so that's good enough for me. Amelia Hunt 22:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We should be accurate, and as Amelia says, the dab will stay any potential confusion. ADH (t&m) 00:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should be accurate and name the movie in the way the authors did, not the imdb guys. Mikkalai 01:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the movie poster authoritative enough? Clearly a period at the end.  IMDB isn't making it up. Cburnett 04:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The author's page Adaptation at BeingCharlieKaufman.com has more authority to me. Mikkalai 18:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a fan site, run by an Australian guy, and the only place it says "Adaptation." is on the poster. I emailed him asking about the dot and he said he couldn't give a strictly canonical answer, but the two draft copies of the script that he owns are titled "ADAPTATION" so he figured it was just for the poster. Hence my vote below. -- Guybrush 09:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia often gives an article title based on standards of common sense rather than the whims of the marketing department of a studio.  Many works of literature are named here based on modern title format, not whatever calligraphy appears on the book, paper, or magazine cover. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Like "Clerks.", eh? Cburnett 04:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support moving clerks. as well.  -- Netoholic @ 08:22, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Support. Works with specific 'canonical' titles should have their articles located at that title (barring ambiguity in the title, but in this case that's easily avoided by linking to adaptation from Adaptation.).  -Sean Curtin 05:17, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: if Clerks. and eXistenZ is acceptable (the articles currenly reside there) then so is this. violet/riga (t) 17:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just typographic decoration that the poster designers and marketing folks added, not part of the name (you say "adaptation", not "adaptation dot").  I don't think "Clerks." is acceptable either.  eXistenZ and Motörhead are pushing it too, but at least they aren't decorated with additional silent characters.  ''&mdash;Michael Z. 18:22, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)"
 * The period is some typographic ornamentation that the movie's graphic designer created for "branding" purposes, and the promotional department perpetuated it in the news releases. It's not called "Adaptation dot".  The period is not part of the English-language title Adaptation, any more than the cherubs and fleurons that appeared on the original posters are part of the title of Hamlet.  Move this to Adaptation (movie).  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-27 23:26 Z 
 * I have severe doubts as to the number of people (even those who have seen the movie, as I have with Clerks. noticing that it has a period in the title and expecting an encyclopedia to reproduce that period. People who know Wikipedia would be likely to look at adaptation (movie), as would I.  I think a lot more people who use Wikipedia know about such conventions than know about the periods in "Clerks." and "Adaptation.". (comment left by Tony Sidaway)
 * So? Even supposing this is true, given that there's a redirect, what does it matter? Rd232 21:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It means the article does not have to be moved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what redirects are for: misspellings. It's "Clerks." not "Clerks" and "Adaptation." not "Adaptation".  I don't see your's or Netholic's or Michael Z's or the others' name attached to the movie, so I hardly see how your opinion of what the movies' title should be is relevant. Perhaps you should contact Kevin Smith and Charlie Kaufman and complain about their creativity or something... Your ignorance of the proper title shouldn't dictate the true name of something.  To address that, use redirects. Cburnett 22:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * When you get a chance, go to the official Clerks website and take a look around. This is operated by Kevin Smith's company, View Askew.  I only see one reference to "Clerks." (with a dot), and that was on the cover of the DVD (a marketing mechanism).  Most telling is this page of background movie info.  Death to the dot! -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Didn't bother to look at the title of the site, did you? "Clerks."  The title of the official site is "Clerks." and the title of wikipedia's article should match: with a period. Label the period a "marketing gimmick" if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it's in the title of the movie. Cburnett 22:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * But this is most likely due to either laziness on the part of whoever wrote the content for that website, or some other similar reason. Kevin NEVER types the period when he's casually mentioning the movie in message board posts (nor do most fans), but when you watch the actual movie itself the title that comes up to display the title of the movie says "Clerks." --Plattopus 18:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the author called the movie. The vast majority of all people who saw Clerks call it Clerks, which is also what the vast majority of people who didn't see Clerks and want to know about it call it.  And therefore Clerks, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is its name.  A redirect can handle the case of the few people who know what you believe to be the "true" title.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The issue has nothing to do about whether people will find the article. That is why there are redirects.  The issue is which is the MOST ACCURATE title of the movie, and I think the evidence supports "Adaptaion.".  There is policy about this, which states that the title should be the name of the movie in its UK or US release.  Redirects can get people the page whatever they type.  I don't want us to start fixing all the intentional mistakes that come with titles and names.  Like, for example Boys to men or The Beetles.  --Samuel Wantman 10:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you pulled phrase "most accurate" out of your hat. Wikipedia policy favors the most popular title. Articles should be where people expect to find them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. &mdash; Ford 19:28, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've seen no convincing evidence to support the idea that the period is part of the official title; it's not seen anywhere but on the poster, the opening credits of the film and the IMDb. The credits list it in the same font as the poster, so if that's a marketing gimmick, they're just matching it. The poster text - the "A film by" etc. at the bottom of the poster - doesn't use the period. The redirect is probably fine, but we can add it. Adaptation (movie) is much more appropriate. -- Guybrush 09:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say that "the opening credits of the film" would be one of the most obvious places to find the actuall title of a movie, since it's in the movie itself (a place normally untouched by studio bigwigs in the less mainstream genre to which Adaptation. belongs). Filmmakers in general (and especially someone like Charlie Kaufman or Spike Jonze) do not just put whatever the marketing department tells them to put in the opening titles. It's THEIR movie, so they put the NAME of THEIR movie in the opening credits. Noone has ownership of what they put in their films but themselves. --Plattopus 18:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We're not talking about the whims of some marketing department in a studio board room. I have seen an image of the original screenplay and it indeed has a period, so therefore the film's full and correct title is Adaptation.. I think that Wikipedia should conform to the precise title of the publication, movie, etc and not dictate its own. --Plattopus 18:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Accuracy should be a priority, and all literature I've ever seen indicated Adaptation. with the period. Not to mention the title screen, which can be viewed at http://www.shillpages.com/movies/adaptation2002dvd.jpg for consideration. JnB987 23:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Up through here I have: 11 support, 6 oppose. Nearly 2 to 1 in favor. When exactly do we qualify it as "a consensus"? Cburnett 00:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ugh, why didn't this talk page show up when I just looked for it? I've just moved Adaptation (movie) to Adaptation. (movie), which is almost, but not quite what the consensus above is.  I should move it again to Adaptation. as per above, an clean up the redirects, but any comments before I proceed?  -- Kaszeta 17:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO Adaptation. (movie) is just as misleading and incorrect as Adaptation (movie). The correct title has a period, and therefore the movie identifier is not necessary. The page should be moved to Adaptation. with all other pages being redirects to it. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]] plattopustalk 17:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Again? Where is the archived discussion? This was voted on a couple of months ago. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-27 23:26 Z 
 * Ah. Just read the comments, and I see this vote has been running for three months.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-27 23:29 Z 


 * There's a clear consensus to move the page. The DVD cover also has the period at the end, for the record. The argument about how the article should be "where people expect to find it" is all but moot, since the average person would expect to find it at Adaptation (the disambig page), and not under any other of the titles suggested. In this case, having the article title appear the way it does on the movie cover seems to make the most sense. But, at present moment, Adaptation. cannot be deleted (due to a current server problem with block-compression), so nothing's going to happen right now anyways. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A bit of pedantry -- there is no clear consensus in the discussion above. There is a substantial majority in favor of moving, but that is not equivalent to a consensus (clear or otherwise). older &ne; wiser 01:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Allow me to rephrase then. There is a substantial majority voting in favor to move the page, therefore the page should be moved. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the following reasons.

I wonder what would happen if someone were to officially name their new movie with a trailing space character — or let’s say with a newline character in the middle, I mean, why not? The Wikipedia article could look something like the following:


 * Some Movie
 * ''The correct title of this article is Some Movie. The newline character is omitted due to technical restrictions.
 * Some Movie, the first work of art whose title includes a newline character, is a 2007 movie by Joe Schmo. [...]

But that’s not the end of the fun. For example, for your next movie title, why not add a trailing paragraph separator instead of a newline character? It gets even more interesting when you start to consider the full range of control characters: of course, BEL immediately comes to mind, but I think the ultimate annoying movie title would be one that contained a NUL character.

If you think I’m being silly, please consider the fact that punctuation characters like periods and commas are the control characters of English. Including disruptive control characters in names is very confusing, and I think there is a limit to what kind of name games Wikipedia should honor at the cost of typographical clarity. Ending a movie title with a full stop for no reason crosses the line in my book. It’s just pointless typographical clutter.

— Daniel Brockman 11:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

McKee not a deus ex machina
Concerning the line: "In the film, Kaufman represents McKee as the deus ex machina, as he gives Charlie the solution to his problematic situation." In the film Adaptation, Robert McKee was introduced very early in the story. His expertise with scripts was also introduced early, and it was mention ed that McKee and Charlie would both be in New York at the same time. Because his appearance was fully explained, he is not a deus ex machina. Furthermore, his advice does not resolve a conflict at all. It causes Charlie to seek out his brother's help, which actually complicates the plot. However, the alligator that comes out of no where to eat John Laroche at the end, THAT is a deus ex machina. - Luke (4:40 EST) 4-14-06


 * Can't agree. Deus ex machina implies a contrived or unexpected resolution. We were already shown the presence of alligators, and thus the attack on Laroche is an acceptable event in the story.124.121.224.160 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that McKee isn't a deus ex machina for the same reasons. He is introduced early on, and his name is given in connection with a course on writing for films. Totorotroll (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Flower species
I was hoping this article would list the flower species mentioned in the movie. Anyone obsessive enough to do so? —Pengo 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Headlines
-Wildroot (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Move? (2)

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation. → Adaptation (film) &mdash;
 * The fullstop at the end of the name seems to be against the rules of WP:MOSTM and similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed. Also, Adaptation (film) is a redirect to Adaptation.. Wildroot (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The WP:MOSTM applies here, especially since a fulltop/period is barely noticeable (I didn't anyway until reading User:Anthony Appleyard's request).  Furthermore, a variation on WP:NC(P) applies (It recommends "adding a parenthetical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused.")  Although few are likely to accidentally type a fullstop, its appearance is similar just as if it were called Adаptation, Adaрtation, or Adaptatiοn.  —   AjaxSmack   14:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per MOS; just note in the opening sentence that it ends with punctuation, like WALL-E mentions how it's decorated with an interpunct. May be worth looking at Good Night, and Good Luck., too. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've posted a request at Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck..  —   AjaxSmack   20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Note Warning (album), Nimrod (album), and Kerplunk (album). All end in punctuation (":", ".", "!" respectively) and article points to disambiguation. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine I'll Support Wildroot (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Can someone please explain why Wikipedia should decide how a title should be spelled or punctuated? It really grates on my nerves that Thirtysomething is capitalized in Wikipedia even though the creators intended it to be spelled in lower case and it's spelled in lower case everywhere else. If Charlie Kaufman wanted his title to end with a period, why should Wikipedia decide to remove it? How reliable is an encyclopedia that changes things just to conform to its way of doing things? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia titles articles with their common names. While Kaufman formatted the film title as "Adaptation.", if you check secondary sources about the film, the punctuation is dropped.  It's a particular inconvenience to use the punctuation amidst prose.  It's easier to identify that the title is formatted as such in the lead sentence and to use the common formatting from then on. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (3)

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Adaptation (film) → Adaptation. – Original title is with “.”. --79.139.241.21 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS:TM decorative punctuation. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per last RM above, "The fullstop at the end of the name seems to be against the rules of WP:MOSTM and similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)" so said. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Agoraphobic?
Charlie's not agoraphobic. If he was he'd be afraid of going out of his house, but he's out of his house plenty. Uncomfortable around people, yes. Agoraphobic, no. Wikipediman23 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro prose
Since for some reason I can freely edit any part of this article but the "intro" section, I have to leave a comment rather than exercise the WP dictum, "Be bold", and just fix it.

I don't wish for anybody to take this as an insult, but the intro needs refinement. First example: the reference to Charlie's "difficult struggle". A "struggle" is inherently "difficult". The word "difficult" is clearly redundant and should simply be removed.

The second example is not as egregious, but merely clumsy: "invented events". In this case, there is a clearly a need for a way to express that the events are manufactured, fictitious, or not actually part of the book the movie "purports" to be an adaptation of. Surely, one could substitute something along the lines of "contrived events" or even merely "contrivances", or...ANYTHING else that doesn't use the fragment "vent" in a word to modify another word that also uses "vent." It reads like a middle school essay. "His invented invention eventually vented the ventilation vents." "Invented events" isn't actually wrong, just unnecessarily clunky.

"Fictional", "contrived", "figmentary", "artificial" could all be considered superior to "invented". Or, if one were truly insistent on "invented", then why not "invented situations"?

Not every article has to be a gem of prose, but I think we should expect better than this. Forgive me is this comment seems inappropriately critical, it's not meant to be an attack, but I don't know how else to express this. If anyone thinks this is too harsh, I apologize in advance. Jefferson1957 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet again the title
As is clear from the earlier discussions, the actual title of the movie is Adaptation. with a period. I hold it to be self-evident that that the WP article title should therefore include the period.

Rename request
In the earlier discussions, most of the debate was whether the title should be simply Adaptation. with a period, or whether it should be Adaptation (film) (or Adaptation (movie)) with a disambiguator. It was argued that most people will not notice the period in the title and therefore Adaptation. would be misleading. I say that this is correct, but the logical conclusion is that the title should be Adaptation. (film) (with the period and the disambiguator). It does not matter if there are no other articles titled using Adaptation. and a period; a disambiguator can also be used if there are articles with a similar but not identical basic title.

In the last discussion, someone cited the Manual of Style where it says that Wikipedia does not respect "decorative punctuation" in trademarks. Fine, but that's trademarks. Here we're talking about a title. And one obvious example where WP does retain "decorative punctuation" in a title is the articles M*A*S*H and M*A*S*H (TV series). Which is good, because that's the correct title of the TV series. --50.100.191.11 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Usage in article
On another point, the article itself currently refers to the movie as Adaptation. in the lead sentence but then switches back and forth between that and plain Adaptation in the body and infobox. Whatever decision is made about the article title, this needs to be cleaned up, and covered in the lead. If plain Adaptation is to be used, then the lead should say something like


 * Adaptation (officially titled Adaptation. with a period) is...

and the places using a period should be changed. Or if the period is to be used throughout, then the lead should say something like


 * Adaptation. (the period is part of the title) is...

I would change it myself, but let's see if we can get consensus on which way. --50.100.191.11 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose changing the article title. Previous attempts to change the title name have failed because of opposition from editors who believe that the period at the end is not an integral part of the movie title. You draw what I think is an apt comparison with the movie M*A*S*H. However, when I look at sources such as Allmovie, the Academy Awards, the New York Times, and [ http://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Shooting-Script-Newmarket-Series/dp/1557045119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354626062&sr=8-1&keywords=adaptation+script#reader_1557045119 the published movie script], they all omit the period. Yet the same sources include the asterisks in M*A*S*H [ http://www.amazon.com/Original-Movie-Script-Library/dp/1566933080/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354877363&sr=1-2&keywords=m*a*s*h+script ].


 * I agree that usage within the article should be made consistent, but that usage should match the article title and omit the period. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception by Orleans?
Authors: I think that due to the addition of so much fictitious material regarding her "affair" and "drug use", that Ms Orleans' reception to the filmed adaptation of her book would be relevant. Was she involved with the adaptation process? If not, did she know what turn the film took regarding her fictional personal life prior to its release? And finally, what did she think of the finished product? Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Moi - I've read the WP article on The Orchid Thief where this very information is found. Editors, should it also be included here? All the best, Wordreader (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a relevant information indeed. I'll add it right away. --Hyliad (d), January 22, 2018, 13:45 (CEST)

Clarification on dates?
In the "Production" section it says: "The idea to do a film adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief dates back to 1994.[9] Fox 2000 purchased the film rights in 1997,[10] ..." However the entry about the book itself, "The Orchid Thief", says that the book was only published in 1998, and the article it was based upon - published in 1995. I've looked at the respective references, one article from Dec 1999 says that the book was optioned "two years ago", the other from Aug 2002 says the movie "took eight years to bring to the screen". Isn't it possible that these are just rough estimates?... Anyway, if I am wrong and the film rights were indeed purchased before the article was ever published, and if Kaufman started writing the script before the book was ever published, I think it should be mentioned specifically, otherwise it is somewhat confusing. Tomg440 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204172423/http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com:80/movies/adaptation.htm to http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/movies/adaptation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adaptation (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217210839/http://movies.ign.com/articles/035/035453p1.html to http://movies.ign.com/articles/035/035453p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/movies/adaptation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Stylization of title
We shouldn't include the period at the end of the film title, as this is stylization. (Yes, the use of unconventional punctuation is stylization.)

Stylization disrupts prose and we do not slavishly recreate it in articles, especially when it's not reflected by sources (this isn't).

Where stylization is significant or notable it can be mentioned in parentheses or footnote ("Stylized as..."). See MOS:TMSTYLE. In this case the stylization is so trivial it's not worth pointing out. Popcornfud (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, punctuation is not stylization. And the correct title is not insignificant. The article is fine as it is. 217.32.179.230 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a stylization – it's a representation of a typed screenplay manuscript, which would have a period at the end of each sentence, including the titles and headings. We don't include the period at the end of albums which display them on their cover, such as Behaviour or Damn for example, because they are seen as stylizations. There's no explanation as to why it's significant to include the period. The majority of reliable sources don't include the period when discussing it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Stylization is typography, not punctuation. 217.32.179.230 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As much as I think editors takes the “stylization” notes a bit too far, noting a period at the end of a title is generally accepted as normal practice. Titles are generally not sentences, so it’s noted as such. Sergecross73   msg me  22:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)