Talk:Ginger Snaps (film)

Questions
Have revised the page, the use of the English language is now in correct Canadian/British English as it should be given that is is a Canadian film. It now reads better too, having improved the phrasing to correspond accordingly.
 * Canadian English is closer to British English than American English is. Nonetheless, there are some "American" terms which are more common in Canada than their "British" counterparts.  Case in point: "Whilst."  I take it you are British, because the average Canadian would never say "whilst," we say "while" like Americans.

Language
After many revisions by non-Canadian/British editors, have revised the article once again, ( it was a rag bag of American and British/Canadian English). As it was mostly and originally in Can/Brit Eng. (about 80/20), it is now wholly back into Canadian/British English in accordance with the film's country of origin: Canada. Although, I believe the wiki convention says majority rules in such content; in whichcase, I did th right thing anyway. 10 Apr. 2007 Lost Girls Diary

Perhaps a one sentence disambig mention at the top? Or note the pun regarding the movie's title? zen master   T  20:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I put a brief note about the move title in the first paragraph. Feel free to tweak. &mdash;Morven 22:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it ok to have 2 articles on wikipedia differentiated only by capitalization? Ginger Snaps and Ginger snaps? Not a big deal but maybe we need (movie) and (cookie) in the title to disambig?  zen master    T  23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the difference between a horror film and a horror-comedy
CanadianCaesar, you state that 'If you watch the director's commentary, he makes all sorts of comments like "that was funny..." "We thought this was funny..." "What is this, a horror film?"'. This is no doubt true but i suggest that this doesnt make the film a horror-comedy. For one thing, look at the way genres are categorized here on Wikipedia. There actually is no 'horror-comedy' genre here, but there is Comedy Horror and it is a sub-category of comedy: as in comedy drama, comedy science fiction etc. This implies, and the list of films supports this, that the film and its intentions are primarily comedic, while its imagery, characters etc draw on the horror film. This is clearly not the case with Ginger Snaps. A great many horror films contain moments of comedy to ease the tension or for contrast but i think its going too far to then call all of these horror-comedies. Personally, I think this gives people a very wrong impression of what the film will be like. IMDB categorizes the film as Drama, Horror, Thriller. Allmovie.com says Horror, Coming of Age, Monster Film, Feminist Film. Aglie 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The category is also a subcategory of Horror films. I'm aware of no rule that states comedy-horror films, or horror-comedy films, have to be primarily one or the other, (and I don't think the word order makes a difference); I agree a "great many" films are turning out to be blends of horror-comedies, but there are still films that opt for straight horror- there is little to laugh at in The Ring or its sequel (although I know some people found those to be unintentionally funny). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is the sort of thing that could really use referencing, considering the subjectivity of the categorization. I've seen the movie myself and I would definitely not categorize it as a comedy. True, there are a few things in it that are funny, but the movie as a whole is IMO not intended to be. What sources are there that consider it comedy? IMDB lists it as a "Drama / Horror / Thriller", Box Office Mojo classifies it simply as "horror", Rotten Tomatoes classifies it as "horror/suspense". Bryan 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! According to this  Ginger Snaps actually won a comedy award.  I think this is a pretty good reference that the film is comedy-horror. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot
Would it be alright to add of Katharine Isabelle to the cast section? On the image page it says that the image was removed from the actress's wikipage so I'm not sure. I think it would add to the article. --Supernumerary 06:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was removed for having no source. It now has a source and has been re-added to the article.  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ways to Improve
Does anyone have ideas on the best way to improve this article? The only things I can think of are expanding the production section, copy editing, and possibly adding more screen shots. I want to get it ready to undergo a peer review.--Supernumerary 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a simple yes/no opinion then? Keep this picture of Katherine Isabelle in the cast section or replace it with this one? The first one only shows Isabelle, but the second shows Isabelle and Perkins. I think the latter is preferable.--Supernumerary 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced "drug dealer" with "marijuana dealer", as throughout the movie the only drug that Sam is shown packaging, making, or selling is marijuana, and as such calling him a "drug" dealer within this article would be slightly misleading.24.31.244.43 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalizing to reflect accurate information. The movie shows him dealing marijuana and no other drugs. If you are stating a quote from the movie's dialogue, it is appropriate to use the specific quote of "drug dealer". However, if you are summarizing the plot of the movie, as this article was doing, it is better to accurately reflect the plot by stating him doing what he is shown doing in said plot and not simply quote what another character claims of that character. Accuracy is vital to an encyclopedia, after all.24.31.244.43 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it is vandalism as what you see, or assume you see - as you don't actually see any drugs at all - in the film is not what he is referred to in the script, which is a Drug Dealer; in both the descriptives, and the dialogue. Therefore that's what it should say in the treatment. Lost Girls Diary 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination on Hold
--Ling.Nut 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are run-on sentences and overall hurried writing and informal tone:
 * "However, Ginger rejects the first cure, a pure silver ring, and as Brigitte tries to find another solution Ginger kills a local girl."
 * "Mimi Rogers was sent a script, and she replied quickly to the black humor and comic relief in her role and received the part. Robin Cook, the Canadian casting director, suggested one of her favorites, Kris Lemche, for the drug dealer and after he auditioned Fawcett hired him."
 * All of the awards need inline cites.
 * Done. I removed the comedy award since the official site did not have. However, IMDB and Wikipedia both have it listed, which is strange.--Supernumerary 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, there are some sections that have too few cites. I start to worry about copyvio when I see whole paragraphs with only one cite at the bottom.
 * The lead should mention the controversy during shooting.
 * Mentioned. Do I need to provide a cite there as well?--Supernumerary 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was asked to give a second opinion, so here are my thoughts:
 * I'm not as down on the prose as LN is, but it's not great. There are some areas that paragraphs could be expanded or combined before I would approve this.
 * I'd be really grateful if you could provide examples. I'm busy rewriting it and would be glad to fix anything pointed out.
 * No problem. The "casting," "Shooting," and "Reception" areas are the ones that need tightening, and you may want to see if you can find someone who can copyedit the plot area for you.  It's somewhat rambling in nature. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The prose improved between yours and LN's reviews, but I had not gotten to the sections that were bothering you. So hopefully that means that I fixed what was wrong with them just as I fixed the earlier sections. Check and see if you would. (When I get some time I plan to rewrite the reception section to better incorporate the feminist critique and try to better represent the positive and negative reviews.)--Supernumerary 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of sketchy sourcing happening that I don't know if I'm comfortable with. If you can source them away from website/fansites toward something more reliable (even if it's a trendy horror magazine or something), you'd have better luck.
 * The source for nearly all of the production data is the official press kit. However, the official site is now defunct (Google cache and the internet archive do not have copies), so it's coming through a copy on a fansite. As for books, a search of Amazon reveals it getting mentioned in only two, and one is only a passing reference. (The local library has neither of them, and I'm not sure if I want to spend $30+ for a few relevant pages.) All the other cites are of interviews or film reviews. So I guess what I need to know is, is the official press kit considered unreliable?
 * I didn't catch that. My suggestion is to stop linking the website repeatedly, and instead use a ref tag to reference the press kit.  Then, in the external links, provide one link to the site with the press kit materials.  Treat them like a book or magazine that isn't online, and you'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * badlydrawnjeff had further comments, see above.
 * Hi Supernumerary,


 * I'm wobbly, but afraid I'm very gently leaning "fail" at the moment..
 * I did a little quick research and found two relatively respectable sources for some decent quotes:


 * http://www.thirdspace.ca/articles/3_2_nielsen.htm
 * Wow. Thanks for this, I don't know how I missed this one.
 * Briefel, Aviva.(2005). Monster Pains: Masochism, Menstruation, and Identification in the Horror Film. Film Quarterly, Spring 2005, Vol. 58, No. 3, Pages 16-27.


 * As for the prose, I'll think about it and put some more comments on again soon.
 * Thanks for your hard work --Ling.Nut 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to do some copyediting on the prose. To be frank, it all looks as though it were typed in about 30 minutes flat &mdash; particularly the synopsis. A van hits the lycanthrope, and later they know it was the drug dealer's but how do they know? The name of the Canadian casting director is avoided for several lines, then mentioned with respect to casting the drug dealer. The whole article had an informal, unencylopedic tone (I replaced "turned off" with "appalled," for example. "Sam and Brigitte hide in a closet while he finishes the solution, but he is pulled from the closet." Who is he, and how is he pulled? These are just exxamples; the entire article needs copyediting, IMO.--Ling.Nut 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyediting. The "he" in the sentence you quoted refers to the nearest male antecedent "Sam", which I think is obvious. I will clarify that he is pulled from the closet by Ginger. I've clarified how she knows that it was Sam who hit the werewolf. I agree that it is awkward to avoid the casting directors name. However, I really don't see what is so terribly bad about the prose. I'm trying to be very formal (avoiding contractions, avoiding colloquialisms, etc) but apparently it's not working. I wrote most of the article. I copyedited it once before the PR, and I copyedited again when you first commented. I think it is beyond my abilities to fix the prose if I've failed after two copyedits. It seems that I will need to solicit someone to copyedit it (or read manuals, examine FAs, etc) and track down sources before it is ready for GA. Thanks for your time.--Supernumerary 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article PASS
The article has improved since this process began. I'll take your word for it that you're going to keep sharpening it. :-) --Ling.Nut 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I will sharpen it up more as soon as my Christmas break starts on Thursday.--Supernumerary 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lenin and McCarthy, I have checked the original ga version, and frankly it is the most badly constructed, awfully written tripe imaginable. Many have contributed to massive improvements since that time.

As I said previously, regular users are perfectly happy with the article as it is, apart from the vandals, whom, sadly, I would count you amongst! According to the wikipedia rules, you are supposed to respect the views of the majority. I suggest you do so! --Lost Girls Diary 5 August 2007.


 * "the most badly constructed, awfully written tripe imaginable."? If you has a look you would find that in fact the article has remained much the same, except for the excessive expanding of the plot and making the TV section more verbose without adding that much information. In fact, the very fact that it was GA'd would indicate that it was in fact of good standards.


 * Furthermore, you have no evidence that the consensus of the Wikipedia community approves of so long a plot summary. In fact, if you look at almost any other GA or FA approved plot summary you will find that none of them are this long. If you speak to the members of WikiProject Films, I have no doubt they will agree this plot summary is too long.


 * Finally, it should go without saying that I do not take kindly to being called a vandal. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You have, I'm afraid, a completely skewed view of the article. I don't like to have to call people vandals, but really, how else do you expect people to react? The version which was so-called 'approved' IS badly constructed, and, furthermore isn't even written in an understandable form of English - I refer you, for instance, to the piece where it refers to Ginger's period! Tripe and uncoordinated nonsense throughout! I hold a Master's in English Literature, do you really want to dispute the irrefutable facts with me?!

The TV section is hardly 'verbose', and was worked on by several regular users with an interest in the film, and the section brings together material not found elsewhere. The bulk of the article is changed out of all recognition to that of the ga'd version. What is more, it is NOT a plot summary (that comes in a few very short lines at the beginning), but a 'treatment' which is a completely different thing. It always was a treatment, even when it was 'approved'; just a very poor one. If you want to put it forth for having it's 'approval' removed, then do so, but unless you have something positive to contribute, then please think again before playing GOD!

Really, what makes you think you have some God-given right to come along and start issuing your orders? You are NOT an admin, and you have no proof that the article is not acceptable to regular users; and if you want to change it, or have it changed, the onus is on you to prove that regular users do not like it as it is. In fact, were it not, I'm sure regular users would have cut it months ago. What's more, you have contributed NOTHING to the article. all you have done is arrive at it out of the blue to cause disruption, nothing more or less.

If you persist in this, then it is indeed vandalism, and you know it. -- User: Lost Girls Diary 6 August 2007


 * Playing God? Issuing orders? Causing disruption? All I am doing is adding a template calling for maintainence. I repeat, no plot section (defined as a treatment, a summary, or whatever you want) that has been approved as GA or FA is this long. It is not vandalism to call for this article to be brought to standards, nor does it require admin powers or any special mandate, and if you report it as such you will likely be disappointed. I will readd the tag. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have actually taken a look at some of the recent updates, and have to say some are unnecessarily adding to the article as a whole, and I have begun a review and edit. But, as long as you add the tag, I will remove it, or maybe someone else will do the honours in my absence. If not outright vandalism, it certainly invites vandalism from the mindless by adding the template; that much should be obvious! Why exactly have you got it in your head to play God with this - and many other articles? I note that in some cases you have actually done some good, and I applaud that; others, I'm sorry to say, you come across like a petty bureaucrat. As my English tutor drummed into me, if you have nothing to contribute, do nothing! You would do well to heed those words.

I would definitely recommend patience - it is a virtue, and who in their right mind would want the article of Dec 2006 back?!

Lost Girls Diary 6 August 2007

Lost Girls Diary

Treatment has been edited and revised. It is now only 9 lines longer than Supernumary's last version; and he was responsible for it getting it's 'approval' - which, incidentally, missed a whole raft of plot out. The approved version is only 8 lines shorter, that version also missed great chunks of plot, and the difference in length is quite obviously nothing to go adding tags about.

This is as tight as it can get and remain both readable and follow the plot structure; both of which are not only desirable, but essential. You may not like it, Lenin and McCarthy, but you have to remember that not everything can be stanardized to suit you; but please bear in mind, after all, you are just a wiki user, like me, but unlike me are not a contributor to the article in question. I have had the article looked at by a number of people here, and they have all approved of it. It is very clearly up to standard. Please do refrain from adding the tag again; not least, as I have said before, if not direct vandalism, it does encourage people to make mindless edits. If you don't think it is up to standard, then ask for it to be recategorized; but, frankly, that is unnecessary. I will be back to improve the grammar, etc. and maintain as such.

Lost Girls Diary 7 August 2007

Treatment
Is there a reason why "treatment" is used instead of "plot"? All other articles use "plot" for the section's title. SIR KITTENS MCFUZZYPAWS III, ESQUIRE (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there doesn't seem to be. I've removed the brief summary under "Plot summary" and renamed the "Treatment" section "Plot", as guidelines suggest the section should be named. The section clearly is a summary of the plot, not a summary of the Film treatment. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ginger Snaps (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/20070926230135/http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?layid=44&csid1=372&navid=46 to http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?layid=44&csid1=372&navid=46
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103172623/http://www.saturnawards.org:80/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html#dvdrelease

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) 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ginger Snaps (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/20060310033039/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/2070/ to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/2070
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614171700/http://www.ukcritic.com/gingersnaps.html to http://www.ukcritic.com/gingersnaps.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070107064509/http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=176 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=176
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013121325/http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/gingersnaps.htm to http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/gingersnaps.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821111909/http://www.thirdspace.ca/articles/3_2_nielsen.htm to http://www.thirdspace.ca/articles/3_2_nielsen.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) 15:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
The first paragraph of the Ginger Snaps article is :

Ginger Snaps is a 2000 Canadian horror film directed by John Fawcett. The film focuses on two teenage sisters who have a fascination with death. The title is a pun on the cookie ginger snap. "Snap" (snapping) also relates to losing one's self-control, or a quick, aggressive bite. During the film's production, the Columbine High School massacre and the W. R. Myers High School shooting took place, causing public controversy over the film's horror themes and the funding it received from Telefilm.[citation needed]

The final sentence talks about shooting events that occured around the time of film publication. Note that a citation w.r.t the second clause "causing public controversy over the film's horror themes was requested in May 2014. No citation has been added since that time.  The introduction paragraph should be focused primarily on introducing and describing the film and the relationship between the public, the film, and the shootings are discussed in a later section.  Motion to strike this sentence from the leading paragraph.  March 2018.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.148.35 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Essentially there is no consensus on this issue. Opinion was split: some editors think that the film should be primary for Ginger Snaps, while others think that the biscuit is. So the status quo will remain with two exceptions: BrightR's move of the TV series will stand, and the title Ginger Snaps should logically redirect to the dab page Ginger Snap. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ginger Snaps (film) → Ginger Snaps – primary topic. Bright☀ 02:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The primary meaning, if any, is the food: gingersnap. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 02:36, 28 April 2019‎ BrightR talk contribs‎ 50 bytes -5‎  ←Changed redirect target from Ginger Snaps (TV series) to Ginger Snaps (film) undothank Tag: Redirect target changed
 * 02:32, 28 April 2019‎ BrightR talk contribs‎ 55 bytes +55‎  BrightR moved page Ginger Snaps to Ginger Snaps (TV series): not the primary topic thank Tag: New redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi  (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, and also move DAB page Ginger Snap to Ginger Snaps (disambiguation) - |Ginger_Snaps_Back:_The_Beginning|Ginger_snap|Gingersnaps_(novel)|Ginger_Snaps|Ginger_Snap|Ginger_nut Here are the page view stats for all the pages involved. The original film has a slight majority of monthly views (52%), but together with the 2 follow-up films, the franchise altogether holds 83% of views on that chart. |Ginger_Snaps|Ginger_Snaps_(TV_series) Narrowing the views to only exact page title matches, the film absolutely dominates with 95% compared to the web series (moved recently from Ginger Snaps to Ginger Snaps (TV series)). Per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the first film should be moved as requested.  There is a DAB page at Ginger Snap, which is badly-placed because only one of the entries use that exact spelling (and that's a cartoon character on a list page, not standalone).  Since most of the entries refer to "Ginger Snaps", per WP:DABNAME it should also use that, along with (disambiguation) since the film would occupy primary. The food, ginger snap (renamed from ginger nut in 2017) should not be a consideration due to WP:SMALLDETAILS and because of that topic's low usage - only briefly reaching moderate views during the holiday season. -- Netoholic @  10:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, primary is Ginger snap per long term significance (WP:SMALLDETAILS is going the way of the dodo) (poor dodo). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your WP:SMALLDETAILS claim has no evidence - it is still an accepted guideline, and this situation is directly equivalent to the examples given. There is literally no conflict in naming between the film and the cookies... and even if there was, |Ginger_snap|Ginger_nut the film has 80% of views compared to the cookies. A hatnote can be placed on both pages pointing to each other. -- Netoholic @ 14:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Primary if anything is Ginger snap; definitely not this small-budget film. Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there something in the water today? Ginger snap is already primary. There is no reason that Ginger Snaps, which is capitalized and uses the verb "snaps" (aka "to break under pressure", not a plural noun) has any bearing on the cookie topic.  WP:SMALLDETAILS gives precise, equivalent examples which apply to this move. The film has a strong cult following and I've shown above in several ways that it is dominant for page views. Closer should and will weigh down votes like this that don't offer any rationale supportable by WP:TITLES policy. -- Netoholic @  15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is always something in the water on Wikipedia discussions. Ginger snap is indeed independently primary of Ginger Snaps and objecting on the basis that one has to be primary over the other is factually incorrect. Yet three people have already made this trivially refutable claim. Such is life on Wikipedia. Bright☀ 19:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dial it back there, personalised arguments don't help. The WP:SMALLDETAILS does not apply here as the food group, ginger snaps (which we agree is PRIMARY), appears in many forms (capitalised and pluralised), including Ginger Snaps (there are literally hundreds of examples like this: ).  However, in addition to SMALLDETAILS not applying, Ginger Snaps (film) was a small low-budget film that only grossed a half a million at the box office.  I can additionally see no reason why an ordinary reader searching for the various Ginger Snaps films and tv series articles (and there are several), would not find it more helpful to see Ginger Snaps (film), rather than just Ginger Snaps. Britishfinance (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is capitalized in the titles of some recipes, but Wikipedia does not take that into account. We title our articles using "sentence case" - in other words, how the topic appears when written in a normal sentence - NOT how it appears in other titles. In this case, the cookie type is rarely capitalized in sentences. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of the "Ginger Snaps" biscuits being used in full sentences (not just title): here, here, here, here, here, here. I could be at this all day. You will not be doing readers searching for the biscuit, or the film, any favors. WP:SMALLDETAILS just does not apply. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * personalised arguments The argument is that ginger snap and Ginger Snaps are independently primary is supported by Wikipedia policy. Claiming otherwise relies on assuming the policy doesn't have consensus (going the way of the dodo), assuming that applying the policy contradicts one of the policy's explicitly stated purposes (You will not be doing readers searching for the biscuit, or the film, any favors) or simply not understanding the policy (often capitalised, There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of examples).Any other perceived argument of mine is not an argument, only a comment on the arbitrariness of Wikipedia decision-making. Decisions that are not supported by anyone, maybe not even the person who made them, can persist for 12 years. Decisions that are supported by Wikipedia policy are often contested with imagined, trivially refutable reasons.Some examples of the policy being applied: Black Bread—Black bread, Candy Apples—Candy apples, Cole Slaw—cole slaw, Corn Chips—Corn chips, High Rollers—High roller, Hot Tamale—Hot Tamales, Ice Cube—Ice cube. Bright☀ 03:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the WP:SMALLDETAILS policy The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. As shown above, a reader inquiring about the food group is likely to type in Ginger Snaps, Ginger snaps, or ginger snaps.  Therefore it is important for the reader that the cult film is prompted as Ginger Snaps (film), which they can avoid.  Some of the other examples you quote may also need to be looked at as situations like Corn Chips should really have (film) attached to avoid confusion with the food group.  Again, the goal here is making things as easy as possible for the reader to get to their intended page first, without having to use a hatnote from unintended pages, which is sub-optimal.  Britishfinance (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are reading the policy to say exactly the opposite of what it says. You can find the consensus in . Specifically, you quote the exact part that supports small details in the title and a hatnote for disambiguation, and suggest that it discourages the use of small details in the title and a hatnote for disambiguation... As, so is Ginger Snaps precise enough and preferable over Ginger Snaps (film). a reader inquiring about the food group is likely to type in Ginger Snaps This has not been shown as "likely". The only data we have shows that it's unlikely. According to the data, most people who write "Ginger Snaps" refer to the film (as we can conclude from the spike in this phrase when the film came out). They will get to the correct destination. A small minority (about 10%) that reach the film when they mean the food will have a hatnote to assist them. This is exactly what the policy suggests. Bright☀ 05:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film gets over 20 times the |Ginger_Snaps_(film)|Ginger_snap pageviews of the TV series this year. The food ginger snap is irrelevant because it's at a different title, being singular and with a lower case "s", but even if the cookie was relevant, the film still gets way more attention. And ginger snaps will still redirect to the cookie; someone bothering to type a capital "S" most likely wants the film. Station1 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose snack is often capitalized. but uphold BrightR's undiscussed move of the TV series. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Its never capitalized in sentences. Maybe in recipe titles but that isn't the same thing. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be funny if the move fails and Ginger Snaps (TV series), the least significant of the three topics, is restored as the primary topic because one admin made it primary with no discussion 12 years ago? Bright☀ 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of it being capitalised in a sentence: I’ve been planning on sharing these Old Fashioned Ginger Snaps with you ever since my neighbor brought them over to me last year around this time. There are literally hundreds of such examples online; hence why WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply.Britishfinance (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That usage is a reference to the title of the specific recipe being used. A very cherry-picked example and not at all common. Here is a Google Ngram showing that the lowercase vastly outnumbered any uppercase use - until 2000 when the film was released. -- Netoholic @ 02:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (per above) Not cherry picked. There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of the "Ginger Snaps" biscuits being used in full sentences (not just title): here, here, here, here, here, here. I could be at this all day. Britishfinance (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you're proposing that the ginger snap article be retitled Ginger Snaps, it makes no difference. There is no title conflict. The two articles can both exist at their respective WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE titles. Station1 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Definitely not. Ginger snap, often capitalised, is the clear primary redirect here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose original proposal and also oppose primary redirect to Ginger snap. Currently Ginger Snaps is a primary redirect to Ginger Snaps (film), which is inherently unacceptable regardless of whether the parenthetically disambiguated term is the primary topic or not; I suggest either retargeting to Ginger Snap or moving Ginger Snap to Ginger Snaps (no strong preference for where the DAB lives). However, the combination of plural + capitalization is a significant enough WP:SMALLDETAIL to cast significant doubt on the cookie being primary. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:09, 2 May 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-close note
I want to note that, in line with some comments above I redirected Ginger Snaps to Ginger Snap when I closed the discussion. I recognise this may be a reach because this specific question was not discussed by most participants. Anyway this redirection has been reverted by, and I want to check that people are okay with that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)