Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 11

Home media section
I was reading Wikipedia guidelines here and it seems they prefer to put info about deleted scenes in the Production section along with rationale as to why the scenes were deleted if I understand it correctly. Anyone else think we should move the info to Production and delete the Home media section? DrNegative (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was reading the article earlier today and thinking roughly the same thing. To me, the inclusion of the "Home Media" section seems a little awkward. Trusilver  02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead with it since no objections. DrNegative (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pandorapedia
(I thought I would copy a message of another editor and move my message from another section so as not to take  the other section off topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)   )

http://news.discovery.com/space/avatars-pandora-could-be-a-reality.html ! Anyway, check out the video here: http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php I feel like this is something that was in the press releases, because I've been hearing that Polyphemus orbits aCen from the very beginning. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good links! In the first one there was another link to an interview of Cameron which I thought was interesting. There were other videos on Avatar there too. Might be worth adding to External links if it isn't already there. Also, note that Pandorapedia is a wiki with this on its first page,
 * "Pandorapedia keeps on growing and we need your contributions to the site to help us out. Updated information of life on Pandora and other things related to Avatar. Please don't add any junk, spam, unrelated topics, etc."
 * But there was also this message there,
 * "ATTENTION PLEASE DO NOT ADD LINKS TO THIS PAGE BECAUSE THE PAGES CANNOT BE EDITED"
 * So I'm not sure what's going on over there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The domain appears to be owned by fox, and the wiki looks to be official, but the source of the content is a mystery (I assume someone's transcribing info from the Activist's Guide book) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cameron mentioned the site favorably and seemed to be associated with it, in the video interview mentioned above. Maybe the film company tried to start a wiki but it got out of hand with vandalism etc. [never heard of that ever happening : ) ...] so they cut off public access to editing it.  Just a guess. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (film)
Comments on a proper redirect are needed here. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed that redirect to point to this article, explaining my reasons at Talk:Avatar (film). I invite you to discuss the change on that talk page. See also the above requested move discussion. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Na'vi article should be redirected to Fictional universe in Avatar or not?
I feel that the Na'vi article should be redirected to the Fictional universe in Avatar article, to its Na'vi section. The Na'vi article is nothing but the same information found in the Fictional universe in Avatar article. If information about the Na'vi becomes too long, then it can have its own article. I would go ahead and redirect this myself, but it is currently being watched by an editor who might object. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably want to follow the merge process, if you suspect opposition. See WP:MERGE for help with that. Talk:Na'vi and Talk:Fictional universe in Avatar are probably better places for such discussion. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about taking this to the Talk:Fictional universe in Avatar page, but I felt that I would get more responses here. And Talk:Na'vi currently has no discussions, and I most certainly felt that I would not get many replies there...if any. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask if you were proposing a full out merge or a simple redirect. It looked like it was simply copy and pasted from the (Fictional universe in Avatar) article to me and this new one was created as a daughter of the daughter article. DrNegative (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of a simple redirect; that is all it needs, in my view, for the same reasons stated by the both of us. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What BFizz just said. I don't think you are going to see any meaningful opposition to the move, but it's not a bad idea just to cover all the bases anyway. Trusilver  23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of just redirecting it. I do not see what valid argument can be given for this article existing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did invite the main editor currently looking after that article to weigh in here, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased statements
The third paragraph of the entry reads: "Opening to critical acclaim and ...". This is biased. The film is regarded by many reviewers around the world as average and below. This entry should not be used as a commercial for the film. Tom Peleg (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics, which is an aggregate of the most notable film critics from all forms of media, Avatar has a 94% positive review. What exactly would you consider an appropriate threshold to call something "critically acclaimed?" 94% positive reviews sounds pretty damned critically acclaimed to me. Trusilver  17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tomatoes gathers only English speaking reviews, and thus is not universally representative. Moreover, there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that the movie has major faults, that it is an average movie, except to its technological merits. These technological merits are almost the sole aspect for the positive reviews (as stated by reviewers themselves). No reviewers I know of has declared the movie as being an artistic achievement. This should be represented in the entry. As it stands now, the entry feels like a commercial.Tom Peleg (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be asinine, but isn't this the English wikipedia? ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * T-meter critics give it: 83% only. Somewhat representative critical claim: "Breaks technological ground with stunning visuals, but disappoints on story and characters - which still do matter". I don't see that the entry represents this major line of criticism. Tom Peleg (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, RT's top critics index gives it a 94%, that is the most notable film critics. The 83% is the standard aggregate, the one that anyone who is a published film critic can be in, regardless of whether or not they write for something like the "Lower Southeast BFE Kansas Village Herald" or any other such publication that a total of like eight people read. Regardless, even a 75% of those critics still sounds critically acclaimed to me, that's meaning 3/4ths of reviewers are positive about the movie. What part of the words "critical" and "acclaim" are there alternate definitions for that I'm unaware of? As for outside the country, cite a source and we will talk. Trusilver  18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Tomatoes is local to US. Hence, it is not reliable for that matter. There might be other standards in and outside US.
 * 2. Even if Tomatoes was universal, percentage average is not sufficient to say it is "critically acclaim". One has to go deeper. The term "critically acclaim", is not defined, neither represents, some average. We are not discussing here theories of art, but Tomatoes is not sufficient for the general term "critically accaimmed". The farthest you can go with it is by saying, instead of "critically acclaimed", that "Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94% in its top-critic rating", or something of the sort.
 * 3. You did not answer the problem I mentioned before: there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that the movie has major faults, that it is an average movie, except to its technological merits. These technological merits are almost the sole aspect for the positive reviews (as stated by reviewers themselves). No reviewers I know of has declared the movie as being an artistic achievement. This should be represented in the entry. As it stands now, the entry feels like a commercial.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of Rotten Tomatoes is universally accepted on Wikipedia as a benchmark for film reviews. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take your grievance to WP:FILM. But that aside, what you are essentially saying is that a film is not "critically acclaimed" if there is any problem anyone has with the film whatsoever, which is a profoundly ridiculous suggestion. That would make NO movie critically acclaimed. At least two top tier reviews have said something to the tune of "I felt like I did walking out of Star Wars." So... that's not a declaration of artistic achievement? I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this, because you are basically saying we need to recognize your rather questionable definition of what "critically acclaimed" means. So I will wait for others to chime in on this before any further discussion. Trusilver  20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison to Star Wars is certainly not a declaration of artistic achievement. There is a consensus that Star Wars was an important event in the history of cinema for several reasons; Mainly its being a precursor of the "block-busters" phenomena, and as a phenomena of popular culture. But it is far from consensus to claim it is regarded either as high art, or as even "good" art.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with what Trusilver has to say. The film has been acclaimed by Roger Ebert, a veteran film critic, Rotten Tomatoes, a website that consolidates various film critic's scores, Metacritic, the New York Times, and countless other national and international sources. For you to state that Avatar has not been "critically acclaimed" is completely ridiculous. Moreover, your lack of providing sufficient evidence to defend you opinion is what makes me not believe your argument. BalticPat22Patrick 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can simply check the Tomatoes critics: there is a consensus that the movie lacks in important artistic aspects (like plot). The high grades are given almost solely to its technological merits. Claims for "critical acclaim" is thus misleading.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trusilver. With a huge majority of critics giving it a positive review, you cant take away the consensus simply because of the opinions of a very small minority. The film itself is actually doing better worldwide than in the US on the matter of your bias towards a US review site. I would love to see a collection of "notable" sources from foriegn countries that says this move fails artisticly. DrNegative (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing between critical acclaim and the financial success of a film. These are pretty independent issues.Tom Peleg (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, Wikipedia film article policy recommends that a film should receive its consensus from critics of that film's country of origin, in this case, the US - (Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, etc.) With greater than 80% on RT, it becomes self-evident that the film is critically acclaimed because over 8 out of 10 notable critics gave the film a positive review.DrNegative (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Peleg, in the Critical reception section, we clearly note the general consensus among the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers: "It might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but Avatar reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing filmmaking."

We are not hiding anything; it is just that statement does not belong in the lead (intro). Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom has a valid point in that Rotten Tomatoes isn't universally representative, but then no source is. Being "universally representative" isn't a criteria for being a reliable source, it just has to be accepted as a valid source for a recognised body of opinion. If Tom can provide us with reliable sources for critique beyond the English language then that is the way to make it more neutral, not removing sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source for what it is: not of being "critically acclaimed", rather of averaging the grades given to a film by some top critics in the US. Nothing more. Thus, it should be written as what it is, and not as the somewhat speculative term "critically acclaimed". Tom Peleg (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Critical acclaim" does sound like a biased statement, whatever the extent of such acclaim ; it is not necessary to making a good article, and the overwhelming box office figures probably tell more about what the movie is. If you have a look at Titanic (1997 film), which definitely is in the same league in terms of encyclopedic content, you can see that a) there is no mention of critical acclaim in the lead, and b) the amount grossed is plainly, and shortly, stated. The Critical Reception paragraph is quite enough for the reader who might want to read about it, including the tomatometer ; keeping "acclaim" in the lead does not carry useful info, and essentially fuels criticism towards the article.--Environnement2100 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Update the total worldwide gross numbers in side panel and Reception subsection
I have noticed that the worldwide gross totals for Avatar have need been regularly updated; this is occurring in the tab at the side, and in the reception subsection. I am requesting a, so the totals can be edited to the correct amount.

Specifically:

Gross revenue 	$1,331,140,000[3][4]

Should be changed to: 	$1,335,040,297 (according to "The Numbers", although BoxOfficeMojo has the above numbers.

Secondly:

After only 22 days of being released, Avatar has grossed $380 million in the United States and Canada and $782 million in other territories with a worldwide total of $1.162 billion.[3][4

change to:

After only 22 days of being released, Avatar has grossed $380 million in the United States and Canada and $782 million in other territories with a worldwide total of $1.331 or 1.335 billion.[3][4]


 * Avatar has been on release a different number of days domestically and internationally since its worldwide release was 2 days earlier than its US release. There is no point updating to The Numbers gross because it means changing the reference and Box Office Mojo will be updated soon and the gross in teh article will be updated when it does. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm personally going to wait until Monday to update it, that's when Box Office Mojo will update. Like Betty said, there's no point (right now) to switch the refs from one site to another.  Wait and see what BOM says.  With that said, BOM sometimes is slow about releasing foreign figures, but with Avatar, they've been updating really fast. —  Mike   Allen   19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect?
Shouldn't this be at avatar while that hindu thing is redirected to off a disambiguation page? I think more people have seen Avatar than are Hindu now, and it's probably more influential on modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.183.26 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a requested move less than a month at the Avatar page with no consensus to move. I doubt there has been any significant change.--76.69.170.30 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the name Eywa
I was just thinking that Eywa sounds a lot like Yahweh (YHWH) backwards. Does anyone know if James Cameron did this on purpose? Perhaps it could be relevant to include in the article if so. Drewry (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what we think. If you can source it it can go in.  If you can't, it doesn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Only #3-5 in per-screen average
It might be notable that Avatar is only third in domestic gross when it comes to per-screen average. As soon as The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was released on December 25th, it totally hit Avatar out of the ballpark when it comes to per-screen average, grossing roughly 150% of Avatar's average (source: ), and in its second week Parnassus has been able to expand its grosses even further, staying at the top of per-screen average when Avatar has already dropped to #5. I guess it goes to show Terry Gilliam's films only need proper promotion and release, and they'll easily be in the $100-160 million revenue range as were 12 Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm (provided their original budget is any bigger than Tideland, of course). --79.193.27.76 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your links show Avatar in 3461 theaters and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in only 4 theaters. The 4 are in New York City and Los Angeles with millions of inhabitants per theater so it's a meaningless comparison for this article. The second in per theater gross is in 2 theaters, and the last two to "beat" Avatar in one of the weeks were both in 3 theaters. I don't think these extremely limited releases of unrelated films should be mentioned in an article about Avatar. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's exactly why I've been mentioning "proper release". Billions of people have access to Avatar, and yet it's dropping further and further, while Parnassus keeps rising even though access to it is so limited. Seems like the novelty of animated 3D is wearing off quite fast in spite of the millions burnt on hyping a 3D projection and polarized glasses technique that was around 15 years ago at places such as Universal Studios and other theme parks. --79.193.43.154 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Avatar had the biggest 2nd weekend and biggest 3rd weekend ever according to http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#weekends so it's a weird way to describe it. Every studio executive in the world would be thrilled to have a film with "the novelty wearing off quite fast" like that. I'll bet it also sets a 4th weekend record this weekend. With a tiny 4 theater opening there are many factors playing in and it may not mean much whether you increase by 2% in the second weekend like Parnassus. Let's see how it does in wide release. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Novelty of animated 3D is wearing of??? Yeah, that tends to happen to movies when they make 1.3 billion dollars in 4 weeks, with high chances of making much much more. And yeah, Primehunter, you guessed right, Avatar just got the highest 4th weekend in cinema history. On topic, no need to put that in, considering that the only reason "Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" has a high per screen average is due to its small number of theaters in heavily populated areas. Obviously a theater in North Dakota in Avatar's 4th week will have smaller viewings per screen.Dtnoip28 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The numbers from the first weekend with wider release of Parnassus are in. It made merely $1,550,236 in 552 theaters for an average of $2,808. It was the 4th weekend for Avatar which made $50,306,217 in 3,422 theaters with average $14,701. The former 4th weekend record was Titanic with $28,716,310. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination?
In my opinion, this article is GA status and is worthy of a GA nomination at its current state. Is there any reason why we shouldn't go ahead and move forward with it? Consensus? DrNegative (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support here. Trusilver  22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait. It is of GA status, but there is still new information being added and is not yet completely stable. Box Office results are still coming in, new sections are added to this talk page everyday, and the Golden Globes/Oscars are generating more interest as the weeks wear on. Stability at this moment seems to be the only issue. --haha169 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Box office results will be coming in for five more months still, and if we wait on the award nominations, then logic stands to wait for the rewards as well. I see no reason to do either if the article is capable of holding its own as GA as it is currently written. It is FAR more stable than it was the last time it was suggested that it go for GA. Trusilver  03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how its stability is any different than when I suggested it for GA, but I am for it (as you know, LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's seeing an average of 50 edits a day now, instead of 200 a day like it was when you last suggested it. Also, the changes now tend to be minor tweaks rather than the major substantive changes it was seeing two weeks ago, when the plot section would be completely rewritten every day. Trusilver  06:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For: Per nom. Also, this article IS stable.  I don't see much, if any, vandalism or reverts going on.  All I see is editors adding new information and improving the article.  No it's not "unstable".  —  Mike   Allen   06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with the nomination. They have a huge [[WP:GAN#FILM|

backlog]] so it could be several weeks before its reviewed, but its on the list nonetheless. DrNegative (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the time it gets a GA review, the article will be at FA status. LOL. :P — Mike   Allen   07:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nay: While it isn't bad, itseems to be largely popular only due to the common obsession with the movie. I feel that it's really only average. 167.128.58.153 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section Proposal
Not that I wish to give credence to such claims as I find them ludicrous but in order to respect and observe a lack of bias in the article, should it not make mention of some of the controversies that have cropped up lately with regards to the film and James Cameron, such as the claims of White Guilt and direct assertions of racism towards James Cameron? ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, use good judgement and keep in mind WP:UNDUE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We tend to avoid sections dedicated to controversies as a whole, see WP:STRUCTURE, if the sources are notable and reliable, try implementing them in a proper section within the article as a whole thats satifies WP:UNDUE as Bob stated. DrNegative (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems a wholly reasonable stance. With that in mind as it has primarily been an issue raised among bloggers and not really among the mainstream media, therefore it can be assumed that it has not reached a quite significant status, I will not create this section. If someone else wishes to or should this ever change in the future, feel free. Thanks. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The white guilt claim should probably be mentioned because a ton of critics have been picking up on it, it's provoked a notable degree of controversy, and it's a really obvious subtext besides. Cram it in under reception.--70.75.183.26 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed category rename
It has been proposed to rename Category:Avatar (film) to Category:Avatar (2009 film). The discussion is at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 12. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: clear consensus for no move. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film) → Avatar (film) — There are only 2 films with this name on WP and with over 4.5 million pageviews, this is the clear primary use. The proposed name is currently a redirect to a dab page with only 2 films listed; the redirect got over 65,000 hits last month and over 4,000 in 2 days this month. Station1 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support . I don't see any problem as long as a hatnote is provided on the 2004 article. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support . I think it's safe to say that 90% of people looking for a film named "Avatar" will most definitely be looking for James Cameron's film, and not some unknown movie released several years ago that most people haven't even heard of. Just put a hatnote on this article stating This article is about the 2009 film. For the film released in 2004, see Avatar (2004 film). 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I just took a look at the guidelines on naming conventions for movies, and we have three of the greatest examples that also relate to James Cameron: Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film). Clearly the 1997 film is far more well-known and successful than the two previous versions, yet the 1997 movie has not been moved to "Titanic (film)" with a hatnote explaining the other two films. Perhaps it is best that we wait at least 6 months to a year from now and see if the current Avatar film is still searched enough to warrant moving to "Avatar (film)".24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Personally, I've never even heard of the 2004 film, and after looking at the article, it seems to reference "Avatar Exile" as a name - not purely "Avatar." -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Against. The film is on current release so obviously this article will be getting most of the hits.  I think it's better to wait and see what the hit rate is like once the film finishes its run so the disambiguation isn't affected by recentism. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't really see any problem with keeping the current name or moving it.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 *  Strong Support: Per nom. — Mike   Allen   00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per Eric's argument and WP:PROMINENCE. — Mike   Allen   03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet Of course it got plenty of hits; it's currently in theaters - and people do use us like IMDB. But that's presentism; in five years it may be down to the level of the 2004 film. Wait at least until it's not in current release. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Using the pageviews argument at anytime is flawed, but it especially shouldn't be used here. Of coarse this article will get far more views, the movie just came out less than 3 weeks ago and became the fastest movie to $1 billion worldwide.  TJ   Spyke   01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Station1's flawed argument. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to Avatar versus Avatar (2009 film); surely we are not discussing moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar and Avatar to Avatar (Hindu term).  The film article is getting more attention than the article about the Hindu term because it is a blockbuster film currently.  There is no point in moving Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar (film) -- both articles are disambiguated regardless.  WP:NCF indicates zero criteria of popularity or importance when comparing the films that already have disambiguated titles because of a preexisting primary topic.  People are already finding their way to this film article without issue; removing the release year does nothing helpful. Erik (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand on my argument, very few people actually type "Avatar (film)"; see page views for Dec 2009. Same for typing "Avatar film"; see page views for Dec 2009.  This means that less than 0.5% of people who come to the film article actually type either term.  Most people obviously come to the film article through the primary topic, Avatar, judging from its inordinately high number of page views.  This means that removing the release year from this title has no benefit; it is unnecessary subjection of the film articles to a hierarchy when neither are the primary topic.  Another portion probably accesses it directly from search results within Wikipedia, from which we draw the same conclusion of no benefit to removing the release year. Erik (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it did nothing helpful I wouldn't have proposed it. As I explained below, over 65,000 readers hit Avatar (film) last month expecting to view this article and instead were surprised to end up at a dab page. Those people were not already finding their way here without issue. The move would benefit tens of thousands over the next few months. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCF are not mutually exclusive. When one film article gets millions of views and another gets a few thousand, common sense indicates one can get "(film)" and the other further disambiguated with the year. Station1 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem concerned about people being "surprised" by where they end up. If they ended up at the 2004 film article, that would be an unnecessary surprise.  We can see from the page views for Avatar that people type it in as a way to get to the film article.  Maybe they expect the Hindu term, maybe they don't, but we have road signs in place to guide them, either from Avatar or Avatar (film).  If anything, typing "Avatar (film)" shows them that it isn't the only film titled Avatar or some variation of it.  Is it at least not useful for them to see these topics peripherally?  Most people who get to the film article obviously do not get there perfectly, going through Avatar.  Why does it matter so much that less than 0.5% of them get there perfectly? Erik (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now from your expansion (1st indent above) that we agree completely on the facts, just interpret them differently. Your 0.5% is my 65,000. A small percentage but a large number (the redirect ranked 6216 in traffic on en.wikipedia). I don't know that it matters "so much" but why not help those 65,000 per mo get here more easily? Especially if a move hurts literally no one. Net benefit. Station1 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree about the benefit. However, WP:NCF does not apply a hierarchy within film articles that are already disambiguated from a primary topic.  Just because one film is far more popular than the others does not mean it gets some silly benefit of kicking the release year out of its disambiguated title.  People who type "Avatar" or "Avatar (film)" deal with one "hop" to the article that they are looking for.  This is hardly an inconvenience. Erik (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Discussion section below. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - (film) is okay when there is only one film of that name. However there have been several films called Avatar. naming convention policy is to use the year to differentiate them. Canterbury Tail   talk  02:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - According to guideline mentioned above: NCF. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per the naming convention for films. If we have two films of the same name, then both get years attached to them. Plain and simple. We don't say "you get to be just 'film', while you have to be 'year film'". That makes no sense. The fact that someone has to put "Avatar (" into the search field will automatically bring up "Avatar (2009 film)" anyway...so it doesn't make it any easier for the average reader to locate the page if it was just "(film)". Page views have nothing to do with the name of the article. If 100 people view a page 10,000 times in a month then the page views would be rather biased anyway. It's like trying to argue that we should use IMDb's Top 100 listing on film articles as a means to show how popular a movie is. This is why every decision should be an objective one, not a subjective one. Objectively, we have two films with the same name - thus, they are distinguished by the year of release.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the other film with an article may or may not be notable, it does have an article and it does exist. Therefore, this article's name is fully appropriate per WP:NCF and the general naming conventions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose — There are two films by this title on Wikipedia already, more are listed on imdb.com, and no doubt in future there will be still more. I think it is inappropriate to move an article to an ambiguous page name merely to "capture" more page views for whatever article is hot at present.  Looking at the page views on related articles, I think part of the problem is Avatar:  the article at that page name is not what I would expect to find there.  It has hatnote links to Avatar (2009 film) and the dab page, and there is a history of edit warring over those hatnotes.  Looking at the incoming links, I see more than a few that don't intend the Hindu avatar.  I would move the dab page to the base name, then repair the incoming links, ASAP. --Una Smith (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCF ('When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release'). Just have the redirect Avatar (film) direct towards Avatar (2009 film). That way if anyone if the future wishes to challenge the primacy of the film, which is doubtful, they can put forward a redirect for discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose but why isn't there a "are you looking for the other one" note at the top of each film giving a redirect? I know the 2004 film is obscure but we can presume everyone is looking for the 2009 film. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't presume everyone is looking for the 2009 film. Bdelisle (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because it is "new" and "popular" doesn't mean it should get "promoted." There is other media, movies, and meanings for the word "Avatar." Per guidelines anyway, when there are two titles with the same name, they get a year and media suffix. As is the case here adding (2009 film) is appropriate. Bdelisle (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Note: This article was at Avatar (film) until June 2009, so this would be a move back to the original title. The main reason to move is that the redirect Avatar (film) is getting so many hits, over 65,000 last month. Based on pageviews of Avatar (2004 film) from Jan-May last year, when it was getting a couple thousand hits per month, approximately 97% of the readers landing on Avatar (film) are looking for the 2009 film. For the other 3%, a hatnote should be added. Station1 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose a hatnote disambiguation pointing to the 2004 film would be appropriate, along with a move back to Avatar (film). I'm reluctant to favor one or the other, but it seems reasonable. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Naming convention document states to use the year to differentiate films of the same name. Naming_conventions_(films). Canterbury Tail   talk  02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: What about simply changing Avatar (film) to redirect to Avatar (2009 film) and change the hatnote to Avatar (disambiguation) (where Avatar (film) currently points)? This way naming conventions are followed, yet the obvious redirect is preserved. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't a natural redirect, letting the reader choose which article they wish to read from the disambiguation page makes more sense in my mind. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 05:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. Station1 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with B Fizz on this. Since the vast majorty of readers are looking for this film article anyway, the minority would only be a hatnote away. DrNegative (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the current setup is much more encyclopaedic. This isn't the only film by this name, and isn't the only Avatar in film. There are several more that should actually be added. Better to leave it pointed to the disambiguation page than redirecting to a specific title. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Re WP:NCF. Much of the opposition cites WP:NCF, but WP:NCF recognizes the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the section immediately above that. WP:NCF read as a whole suggests a hierarchy of preferred qualifiers: a. none; b. “(film)”; c. “(year film)”; d. “(year, country or genre, film)”. It certainly doesn't say – nor even imply, in my opinion, although it's ambiguous – that every film with the same title must include the year, even if one is the primary topic among films. Even if one disagrees with that interpretation, WP:NCF states at the top of the page that it is a guideline (i.e., suggestion) best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. A major purpose of naming conventions is to help readers easily find the article about the topic they're looking for. If a guideline gets in the way of doing that, as in this case where it is causing numerous readers to land on the wrong page, then ignore all rules. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "From other topics" section of WP:NCF does not apply to the films titled Avatar at all. For films, primary topics work like this: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the primary topic, and there are secondary topics related to it and disambiguated appropriately.  Valkyrie (film) is not the primary topic because Valkyrie took that place.  The "(film)" disambiguation only applies to if there is only one film is titled the same way as the primary topic.  That is why the next section, "Between films of the same name", exists -- for finer disambiguation.  The primary topic is Avatar; this is indisputable.  We do not apply the primary-topic logic to already-disambiguated articles.  Like I said, there is no criteria of popularity or importance when the film articles already have to be disambiguated with the proper differentiation in parentheses. Erik (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Re recentism: Just because a topic is new doesn't mean it cannot be a primary topic, only that we should avoid automatically assuming that it is. No doubt this article will get many fewer pageviews over time, but to suggest that Avatar (2004 film) will ever come close to being searched for as much as this article just doesn't seem reasonable. For the next several years this article will be “much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) [“Avatar (film)”] may also refer”. Station1 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When I want to read whatever everyone else is reading, I use Google to search Wikipedia; Google shows search results sorted approximately by rate of link-through.  When I don't care what everyone else is reading, I use the Wikipedia search tool.  Wikipedia is not Google and we should not be moving articles around in order to approximate the behavior of Google.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have today created a disambiguation category at Category:Avatar and a category about the 2009 film at Category:Avatar (film). This does not express an opinion in or circumvent this requested article move. Avatar (2004 film) is unlikely to get a category and Cameron's film may get sequels so "Category:Avatar (film)" seemed like a reasonable name for a category (although I wonder whether a category was premature at this point). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (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.