Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/Title RfC

Title
Note that the BFI retain the U.S. title. (Due to the film's nationality) Reginmund 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good for you, your being persistent. But to be honest I really don't care about what this article is called anymore, if you can get a consensous or something like that, fo a move to SS, then I really do not mind. Gran2 06:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This was also to indicate that the BFI, probably the most persistent film institute in history, and not to mention British, restores the original working title of a film produced by a company based in Burbank, California. If I had added this fact in before the move, then maybe, it would have worked. Reginmund 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The film was released first in the US, but that doesn't make the film an US film. The whole cast is British, the author is British, and the book is British. The director may be from US, but everything else, even the location where the film is supposed to be, is British. So I would say that this is a British movie. The subsequent films have proven to be more British than American.


 * Also, there is an old legend about the Philosopher's Stone, a legend which made Rowling write this book. I think the US producers should have left the original title as it was for the US. That goes for the film, too.


 * This article is ok, it should be called Philosopher's, not Sorcerer's, because the real legend is about the Philosopher's stone, not a Sorcerer's Stone. A Sorcerer's Stone, in old legends, is... nothing. The movie, and the book, say about a Philosopher's Stone, which is supposed to be the same stone of those old legends. See about Nicolas Flamel, which is mentioned in the book, film, and those legends. Ah, by the way, he was a real person. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the book first came out in the UK, and was called Philosopher's, the movie should be named the same. Anakinjmt 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The nationality of the cast, the nationality of the book it is based on, or the director is irrelevant. In determining the nationality of the film, the company of production is the most reasonable choice. Since it was produced in Burbank, it makes it American. Reginmund (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Closed debate - it's had a month, consensus is very clear that the article should not be moved, so this debate can safely be closed. Neıl ☎  15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Title of this article
RFCmedia

Since this film is an American production, entitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the article should reflect this title. It is based on a book entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but this is the name of the novel, and not the original name of the film. In addition, the film was indeed released in the United States prior to being released in the United Kingdom, which is understandable considering that it is an American film. I suggest that this article be moved to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and that the book's article be left as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are legitimate arguments for changing it to sorceror's stone. However, I believe that they are not very salient, and that the need to be consistent with the correctly titled book article is more important. I (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a joint UK/US production. Warner Bros. were just the distributor and funder, Heyday Films mainly produced it, with David Heyman (who's British) as the producer. Anyway, some may argue that the Warner Bros. factor is enough for it to be renamed, but I'm not convinced... Also what's your source for it being released in America first? As far as I knew, it was released in the US and UK on the same day... And please be aware that a renaming was proposed earlier this year, and was pretty resoundingly defeated. Gran2 07:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, not again. British author, British setting, British cast. Same conclusion as the numerous other times this has come up - Keep at the same title. - fchd (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only in America is it known as Sorcerer's Stone. This is the English encyclopedia. And yes, it is primarily a British film: American funding doesn't mean films like Chariots of Fire or Gandhi were American. Ditto with some of Kurosawa's later efforts which were funded by Coppola and Lucas. Alientraveller (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is based on the British book, and we must remember that A: the book and movie were only called Sorcerer's Stone in America and B: Americans are not the only English fans. The article should remain where it is. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Being it a co-production, the majority of the production occurred in the United States. Three companies were involved in production: Warner Bros., 1492 Pictures, and Heyday Films. Of these three, two were American and the majority contributor (WB) is American. Of these companies, Warner Bros. was the only studio involved in production. Warner Bros. also owns the film rights and has the official web site at their domain. Let alone that Warner Bros. was the majority contributor to the production, distribution and filming, The rest of only the production occurred between 1492 and Heyday. Just because the film is based on a book authored by a Briton doesn't make it British. Anna Karenina happens to be based on a Russian novel but it is a British film. The Third Man happens to be in an Austrian setting but it is a British film. The Third Man also features primarily American actors but it is still a British film. Move it for the sake of the film's nationality. That is how it should be. Reginmund (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is saying it's a British film though, we're saying it's definitively not an American film. And as said above, contributing the most money does not make Ghandi or Chariots of Fire, American. Keep, I didn't even know it was called "sorcerer's stone" in the USA, and no this does not justify that the articles name should be changed accordingly, it means that an internationally released film was known by a different name in just 1 country. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Alientraveller has stated that it is a British film. From the provided evidence, it is definitely an American film. Yet, I never said that whoever contributed the most money shares the nationality of the film. Whichever studio it was produced in (Warner Bros.), it shares its nationality with. Regardless of how many other countries it is known as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, what determines its nationality and original title is how it was titled by the studio that produced it. That would be Warner Bros. based in Burbank, California. For these reasons and those provided in my earlier post, move the article. Reginmund (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except the movie is based on the book CALLED Philosopher's Stone. The movie is called Philosopher's Stone. Only US and Canada got Sorcerer's Stone, and while the population in both countries is huge, everywhere else in the world is huger, and everywhere else in the world the English version is called Philosopher's Stone. I'm not just talking about the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Germany, France, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Norway, Sweden, all other places in the world where the English version is available it is called Philosopher's Stone. 2 countries vs. over 30 countries easily, with odds being strong of much more than 30. Considering it was a joint US/UK production, with a majority of the crew being British, and all of the cast being from the UK and Ireland, it is proper to keep it at the original name. Keep. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt this carries much weight, but the film was nominated for the BAFTA Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film. Which the film would not have been nominated for unless it was a joint US/UK production. Gran2 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another note - it was "Philosopher's Stone" in Canada, as with the books. (Anakinjmt, if you don't mind, could you please remove Canada from the above note for clarity?) --Ckatz chat spy  02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a book's original name was changed for a film in a different country, doesn't mean that the film should be represented by the book's name. Take Murder, My Sweet for example. It is based on a book called Farewell, My Lovely (and in the UK, the original title is restored). Now Murder, My Sweet is an American film, but since the book has a different title and that title is used in another country, should that suggest that we should change the name of the film's article based on how the book was titled or how the film was titled in the country of its production? In this case, that would be the film. The book has its own article for its own title. Also, we don't include countries that don't have English as an official language such as Norway. Or would you suggest changing the article's name to Harry Potter og De vises stein? But that's beside the point. It is also beside the point that there are 40 million more Anglophones that know this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The way of determining the film's title is how it was released in the country of its production, regardless of what the name of the book is. Nor is the nationality of the cast a determining factor. The main characters in The Third Man were Americans, yet the film is a British production. Since the film is a co-production indeed, it may be eligible for any award based on the nationality of one of the three film companies as best [insert demonym here] film. But the determining factor is where the majority of the production occurred... and that would be with Warner Bros.. Reginmund (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The title 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is what could be considered the international (English) title of the film, my reasoning for this has nothing to do if it is a UK or American film but because it is the title used in all English speaking countries other than America, Australia and New Zealand are perfect examples of this. I suppose you argue that doesn't make 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' the international title but it certainly suggests that 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is only a localised title for the film and as such for simplicity sake I feel should take lower "preference". In short stick with 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' aka 'KEEP'. Sin Harvest (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I argue because this film is American, its title should be as it was released in the United States. WP:ENGVAR states that if an article has particular a more specific link to a particular country (in this case, the film is American), the dialect should be used of that country. Reginmund (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ENGVAR states that if an article has a 'strong' national ties then it should be written in that particular variety of English, in my personal opinion who (nationality) produced/funded/directed/etc isn't really a strong tie as to what nationality a film is as there are so many people/companies involved in the making of a movie, also many of these companies are also multinational companies so it contestable if they are of a certain nationality. Also as Gran points out we have to keep consistency in the article so if this article is to take the title 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' the whole article must be adjusted to American English--Sin Harvest (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The film does have strong national ties to the country. In determining a film's nationality, you don't go by the cast's, you don't go by the director's, you don't go by the setting's, you don't go by the book's, you go by the studio's nationality, especially when Warner Bros. is the only studio involved in production. That is the traditional way of determining the nationality of a film in the film industry and it always has been. If indeed the article is moved, then that wouldn't prevent us from changing the spellings. Since I am the one who has participated the most in the discussion for the move, I would do it. Reginmund (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have said this before and I understand why your repeating it but unfortunately it doesn't change my opinion that the studio doesn't inherently have 'strong' ties to the film, also I still believe my argument above about 'Sorcerer's Stone' being a localised title (and thus should take lower preference) still holds merit. I'm not saying your wrong but for the record you have yet to change my opinion that ultimately I feel that we should 'keep' the article as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) --Sin Harvest (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is how a film's nationality is determined. By the studio. If you mean localised title to refer to the book, there is a separate article on the book. The title is "localised" based on the country it is associated with based on the criterion determining that association. Reginmund (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Title of this article - Philosopher's vs Sorcerer's - (arbitrary break)
Because this whole debate has got so tiresome, I'm voting neutral, cos I couldn't really care less what it is called. In my view anyway, the article's name is one of the least important things about a page. But if this is moved, I'm not going to be the one who changes all of the spelling to American. Gran2 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is quite ridiculous. Whether or not this is an American production, it is based on a British book and our article for that book uses the British name. Therefore this page's name should use the British title. Keep asyndeton   talk  18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it is based on a British book. The Picture of Dorian Gray is based on a British book but it is an American film. It goes in line with the American spellings and would go in line with an American release if the title were different. There is a separate article on the book which should undoubtedly keep its British title but this article is about the film and that subject is American. Therefore, this page's name should use the American title. Reginmund (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong national ties to America? What? The studio is NOT a strong national tie. What would be a national tie would be the setting of the book/film, the author of the original work (in this case, a British author), the cast is British, a huge majority of the film crew is British, it's about a British boarding school in Scotland, not to mention it has a British feel to it. Honestly, the book is located at Philosopher's Stone, and I see no reason why the movie should not be at Philosopher's Stone as well. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The studio is based in Burbank, California. Were talking in terms of determining the nationality of the film and when in doing so, one must use the studio to determine this. The cast of The Third Man is American but the film is not American. The crew of The Grudge is Japanese but the film is American. Night and the City is set in and it has a British "feel" to it which is totally irrelevant, yet it is American. A book that was adapted into a film is located at Farewell, My Lovely but the film is located at Murder, My Sweet. See, all of these traits are irrelevant when determining a film's nationality. In the film industry, a film's nationality is always determined by the studio that produced it. In this case, the film is American as it was produced by Warner Bros. in Burbank, California. Reginmund (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of the links you provided to films that were based on a book, how many of the books were released under two different titles? asyndeton   talk  19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Farewell, My Lovely was released under two different titles for the film adaptation. Reginmund (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Movie should be located where the book is located, because it's only in America that it's known as SS, and with the vast majority of the world knowing it as PS, I'm sticking with keep. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The movie should be located where the film is located? So would you suggest moving There Will Be Blood to Oil! (film)? Then again, the film is American so it should reflect the American title, shouldn't it? However, the vast majority of the world knows it as Sorcerer's Stone (which is also irrelevant). Yes, 40 million more Anglophones know it by the U.S. title and that isn't the criterion for moving the page. Reginmund (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions (films) indicate that the most commonly used title should be used. Since the population of the United States alone is nearly three times that of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined, this fact alone constitutes the fact that the "Sorcerer's Stone" title is more commonly used, since it is used by approximately 200 million people more than those who use the "Philosopher's Stone". Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose to renaming the article. To do so would be contrary to the efforts to present Wikipedia as a truly international resource, rather than just an American one. The overwhelming consensus through numerous discussions has been to use Philosopher's Stone, and I think Regimund (et al) should accept that consensus rather than wasting time with repeated attempts at overturning it. --Ckatz chat spy  20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an international resource. However, when there is ambiguity in the title of a film, the name of the film as it is used in the country that produced it is the title that ought to be implemented. Indeed if there is consensus against the move, it is no excuse to make one's points. Reginmund (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The "country" didn't produce the film, a multi-national corporation did. I repeat my points from above - the original name of the book, the author, the setting, the cast - all British. This makes the British (and original, and worldwide) name the most appropriate name for the article. Overwhelming consensus seems to be of that view as well. - fchd (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, yes the country did produce the film. It is a US production since the corporation is based in the US. I repeat my points from above. The original name of the book which Murder, My Sweet is based upon is Farewell, My Lovely. The author of Of Human Bondage is British but the film is American. The cast of The Third Man is American but the film is British. The setting of Night and the City is in Britain but the film is American. So this does not make the film British. Let me make this perfectly clear to you. This article is not about the book, the author, the setting, or the cast. All of those examples have articles of their own and when using a specific dialect of English there, it must be British English. However, this article is about the film, and yet I have to repeat myself again. In the film industry, a film's nationality is always determined by the studio that produced it. This makes Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) the most appropriate name and overwhelming evidence seems to be of that view as well. Reginmund (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The naming conventions state: Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers. There are nearly 200 million English readers who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and only about 100 million who recognize this film as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Therefore, there should be no argument: the title of the article at the present time direclty conflicts with Wikipedia policy, and should be redirected immediately to the correct title. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Retain UK spelling. The film is not a clearly American production: US studio, sure, but British actors. It goes both ways. The argument about more people recognizing the US title comes up perennially, but I've never accepted it (and I think the community tends to agree with me). Such an argument would lead to always using US spellings simply because there are so many of us Americans. This ain't gonna happen. We're an pan-Anglophone (is that a word? Well, it is now) encyclopedia and community.
 * Philosopher's Stone is the original title and is accepted in the country which is the origin of the film (realising that its origins lie in Jo's book). It should be used here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the film is an American production due to it being produced by WB. This is how the nationality of the film is determined, not by the nationality of the actors. It is irrelevant how many more people recognise the film by a certain title. The fundamental way of naming a film is by the country of its production. Incidentally, Sorcerer's Stone is actually the original title of the film. And incidentally, there have been films that have been released with different titles contrary to their books. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The production as a mechanism was British, i.e. British cast, British film studios, British locations, British crew. The only thing US about it was Warner Bros, and even then the producers were working from UK offices during the film production. -- Web H amster  14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The film studio was American. WB is American. Once again, the cast of The Third Man is American but the film is British, the location of Night and the City was Britain but the film is American, and the crew of The Grudge was Japanese but the film is American. Now before you digress again to how there are more people opposing the move, can you address the point I have just made? Or would you concur that Night and the City is British, The Third Man is American, and The Grudge is Japanese? Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with the status quo that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) is the correct title for this article. So long as the correct redirects are in place, the arguments seem like a waste of our time. The film should have the same title as the book on which it was based. --John (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a minor issue, but if one answer is slightly preferable to another, that's what we should use. I don't buy at all that the film has anything resembling "strong ties" to America. Where WB is based is a quite minor issue in my view. The arguments of which name more people know it by might have merit, altho one could just as easily talk about which name more countries know it by. The current name is fine. Friday (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason that where WB is based is brought up is because the studio is the determining factor of the film's nationality. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that correct? There are only 300 million English Readers in the world, and 200 million are in the USA?  Therefore between the British Isles, Australia, Canada, and countless former colonies elsewhere only constitute one-third of English Speaking folk?  This seems a highly dubious claim.  In any case, the Translated editions all use Philosopher's Stone, since it is a pretty universal concept; only the US editions were changed to Sorcerer's.  Thus it would be more like 200 or 300 million potential readers in the USA who see "Sorcerer's" versus up to 6+ billion potentially worldwide who would see "Philosopher's" (or a translated version of the actual hypothetical artifact).  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up - I was looking over Amazon's lists yesterday and noticed the dominance of translations using "Philosopher's", but wasn't sure how to incorporate it here. --Ckatz chat spy  18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at Philosopher's Stone. Rhythm's claim looks and smells like whole cloth; I wager that there are far more than 300 million English readers in the world, especially when the US itself exceeds that number.  I think that Rhythm's just pulling out big numbers to persuade those who wouldn't know any better.  And ad for the RfM?  Forum-shopping. I strongly suggest to Rhythm that he withdraw the RfM or else I will take action for what appears to be this blatant end-run around the consensus. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that there are far more English readers? Well there is a perfectly good article on the novel but this article isn't about the novel. It's about the film and I'll repeat myself. The determining factor in the nationality of the film is the country of its production. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the name of the article with Philosopher's Stone as per all the arguments already made. It's known as PS throughout the world except for the US (where a stupid book publisher decided to change it, and the movie makers followed suit for that audience). Sorceror's Stone redirects to it anyway; so it won't be difficult for people familiar with the US title to find it.  Aleta   (Sing)  18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an issue of who's the jerk that changed the title. I also feel that it is silly too. But Wikipedia does not dictate what a name should be, only what it is. Nor is it an issue of the difficulty of finding the article. In determining the nationality of a film, the studio's nationality is used. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - UK writer, UK crew, UK cast, UK location, UK book, majority of cast paid in UK pounds. And for the assertion it was released in the US first, sorry that's royally wrong. The UK premiere was a full 10 days before the US one. To all intents and purposes any reasonable person will (and does) consider this to be a British film. -- Web H amster  19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the film was written by an American. The crew of The Grudge is Japanese but the film is American. The cast of The Thrid Man is American but the film is British (and I'm sure they were paid is US dollars, too). The location of Night and the City is Britain but the film is American. I repeat myself, these are not the determining factors of a film's nationality. The determining factor is the studio of the film's production. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The scriptwriter is America yes, but his is a derivative work of the British author whom I was referring to. Regrdless of what you would like things to be the general perception of the film is that it is British. The general consensus of this RfC is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the name as is. Consensus trumps guidelines always. -- Web H amster  02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And there is a perfectly good article on the book which uses British English as it is supposed to. Let me remind you once again that this article is about the film and not the book. Please explain how I "like" things to be in a certain general perception. I know that I did not make such a statement at all and I can only assume that you have fabricated it. Is there an instance throughout this discussion in which you are proven wrong, you do not digress to how many more people oppose the move just because you cannot accept the fact that you are wrong? Keep in mind that "consensus" is not synonymous with "voting" and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WebHamster above. Also, what's this ludicrous assertion that most of the world's English-speaking population live in the US?  Does no-one speak English outside of the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand then?  I beg to differ (and so does the rest of the world). The number of English-fluent people in countries where it was released as "Sorcerer's" is easily less than the number where it was released as the original title. It also may be worth closing the pointless RfM.  BLACK KITE  19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't close RfMs just because you don't like them. I'd like to point out that the amount of people that know the film by a certain title is irrelevant too. As I've said in all of my responses, the determining factor is the country of the film's production. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We also don't keep them going ad infinitum until nominators and supporters get what they want. This is already a clear case of WP:SNOW. -- Web H amster  02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We also don't build consensus by ignoring a point brought up several times (as it appears, many opposers haven't actually read it). And we certainly don't close them because there are more people against the move keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This already fails the snowball test so it isn't a case of the snowball clause at all. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet, I'll be bold and ignore that rule that doesn't even make sense and contradicts that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Reginmund (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What rule are you referring to? WP may not be a legitimate democracy but it is certainly consensus driven. Having just read WP:MOSFILM I can't find anything that relates to the main crux of your argument with regard to studio=nationality. Likewise I would like to bring your attention to what that article says at the top of the page. Pay special attention to the words "guideline" (i.e. not policy) and "occasional exception" and "common sense". As for your being bold, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you are confusing the term with "irritating", disruptive" and "flogging a dead horse". -- Web H amster  14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Films are judged by the studios that produced them in the film industry. And a more specific naming convention WP:NC(F) does not mention how to choose between an anglophone film released in different countries with a different title. So use common sense. What's the expertise on film... the film industry. How does the film industry determine the nationality of a film... the studio. And because the convention is a guideline, that doesn't mean that it is automatically discredited just because you don't like it. Now you bring up common sense, which I have just covered. Now common sense appears to be in my favour too since what makes the most sense is to go by the film industry's convention on determining the nationality of films. Those are the keywords; pay special attention to them. As for me being bold, it certainly serves as a support for common sense. But, I'm afraid that your riding of the idea that you can somehow discredit a guideline simply because you don't like it shows your disposition to flog a dead horse (and possibly not just in the metaphorical sense). Your digression from why I'm the topic at hand instead of the film's name is irritating at a climbing level. And your persistent analogies to support a claim that you are posting because of a defence in opposition to a page move that you think is inconsistent with the guidelines for reasons that you do not fully understand is certainly, by all means, utterly annoying and vehemently disruptive. Now would you like to attend to the subject matter or gripe about how the guidelines are against your opinion and blame me for it? Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above and per WP:MOS Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Khu  kri  23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the film is American, if it would follow WP:MOS, it would use the American title. I'm not sure what you're implying by how edit warring over styles is unacceptable, granted we already know. I would hope that doesn't mean that this discussion is an edit war. The MOS of the first major contributor is only relevant when the topic at hand has no specific affiliations with a certain country. But this one does. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well given that the RfC is a month old and there are 13 x keeps, 3 x change and 1 x neutral. What does it take for a consensus to be declared, or is it the intention of the nominator and supporters to just keep going until the snowball gains an asbestos coat and a sun tan? -- Web H amster  02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. One doesn't post their opinion without actually discussing it, in the manner or which, not digressing. You may leave out your analogies of talcum powder, glycerine, and whatever other products are manufactured by DuPont. It has even less relevance to the topic at hand. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And after a survey 6 months ago that was 17 keep and 3 rename...I'd say there is clear consensus that this should stay as is. Metros (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per our guidelines on English/British variants. Let's look at the facts:
 * This movie is based of the book
 * The book is written by J.K. Rowling
 * J.K. Rowling is british
 * Since she is british, we use the british title for the book. Because the book uses the taht title, the movie should also. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article isn't about the book. This article is about the film. That is why the book is located at Philosopher's Stone. Let's look at the facts relevant to the film:


 * A film's nationality is determined by the studio that produced it.
 * The film was produced by Warner Bros..
 * Warner Bros. is American.
 * Thus, the film should use the American title. Reginmund (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, this is getting ridiculous now. Let me spell it out for you.
 * The film is based on a "British Book", by a "British" writer, set in (you guessed it) "Britain".
 * The film was produced in "Britain", filmed in "Britain", and released first in "Britian", with a purely "British" cast, a condition of the author who sold the rights to it (who is "British")
 * A large number of films from all over the world are produced by american companies, this does not make them american
 * It is not the producing company of a film which determines its country, its is a whole number of factors, i.e. the ones listed above. At best, it could be called part US/part British. In which case the title would default to British. Please understand. Consensus is against you. There is only the two of you who have this viewpoint, and all your arguments have been discredited. Stop forum shopping, back away from the dead horse and accept that the article will stay where it is.--Jac16888 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, this is really getting ridiculous. Let me spell it out for you.


 * Of Human Bondage is a British book by a British writer but the film is American.
 * Night and the City is set in Britain but it is an American film.
 * The determining criterion of a film's nationality is the company that produced it. That is always the determining factor of a film's nationality in the film industry. Just because Night and the City was set in Britain and had some British actors doesn't make it a "little" bit British. It doesn't make it British at all. In which case the title would default to American. The only studio involved in the production was Warner Bros.. Please understand, whether or not consensus is against me is irrelevant to the argument. So far, NONE of my arguments have been discredited although I invite you to do so. Stop digressing from the subject matter and if you want to make a subtle argument, read and comprehend. Reginmund (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All your arguments have been discredited, that's why no-one is listening to you. -- Web H amster  14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is listening to me? Hmmm.. I guess that is why no one is responding to my posts, right? Please rephrase your words so they actually make sense. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. The film industry in Britian (BAFTA) considers all the HP films British. And consensus is not irrelevant to the discussion - consensus is the byword to which Wikipedia works. So far in this discussion, you appear to have convinced exactly no-one to change their mind. This is the second attempt to change the name in the last 12 months, consensus overwhelmingly is for keeping it as it is. The attempt at ANI also failed to change the name, and no-one is biting for the RfM. - fchd (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're wrong. The British Film Institute considers the film to be American. And consensus is completely irrelevant to the discussion. So far in this discussion, you appear to have ignored facts, and by a weakness digressed from the subject matter. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If I understand correctly, the proposal is to change the title of the film to Sorcerer's Stone, since the producer Warner Bros. is based in the USA (even though the same film was released as Philosopher's Stone outside of the USA), but at the same time leave the book article as Philosopher's Stone, since the author Rowling is based in Great Britain. This seems to be an absurd proposition based on a technicality, and may be a candidate that meets the criteria for Ignore All Rules, since it would seem to harm the Wikipedia to have different titles for the two media. Common Sense must be applied. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 06:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other instances of this, too. Murder, My Sweet is based on a book called Farewell, My Lovely. Yet, the film is also known under the book's original title in the UK, however, the film is located at Murder, My Sweet which is the American title for the American film. Reginmund (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is an american film in it's entirety, filmed in the states, american actors etc, so it's only natural it is known by it's american title. With the exception of the studio, I'm struggling to see if anything else of the harry potter film is american, i.e. every thing about it is quintessentially British. Using your argument of studio/distributor this would lead us to believe that films such as Notting Hill (film) by Polygram is also american films. I suggest this is closed and marked up as resolved, as there have not been any compelling argument for the change, and any further discussion would be just going round in circles. Khu  kri  08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And it wouldn't matter if the actors were Macedonian and the setting was Wallachia. These are not factors in determining the nationality of the film. Sure, one may say that the book is "quintessentially" British which is an unusual word in reference to the ethnicity of a book. Yet, the writer of the film and the director of the film are both Americans. However, this is irrelevant too. The only relevance in the nationality of a film is the studio's nationality. It has been and always will be the determining factor in the film industry. That is why Never Say Never Again is considered an American film as opposed to all of the other Bond films which are British. ''Notting Hill is a British film since the production actually occurred with Working Title Films. PolyGram only presented it. I suggest you address why the film industry determines a film's nationality by its studio instead of denying the compelling argument for the change. Because the opposers have so thoroughly avoided addressing this, it is the only reason that it is going round in circles. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep at current title. British author, British setting, British actors, British premiere, etc etc. Why are we debating this again? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, OK. I'll repeat myself again. The author is American, Night and the City is set in Britain but is an American film. The Third Man features American actors, but it is a British film. I'm not even going to go near where it was premiered as that is completely irrelevant. Reginmund (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC on title - another arbitrary break
Comment: As an outsider, I see two points that have yet to be made. Firstly, what was the in-production title and the production company name (most films seem to have a spun-off company to manage the project itself)? I would strongly recommend going with the internal name of the film during production as the title (where said title makes sense to be used, of course), as that would be the one used for the longest and known to the cast and the crew. Secondly, the Philosopher's Stone appears to be the proper name for the titular object, and it seems to have never had an established alternative name. LinaMishima (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)



Notice of Mediation
The article title issue is currently being addressed at Requests for mediation/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it would have made sense to wait until the RfC has been closed first. - fchd (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It does make sense to wait - especially since this is in no way a deadlock; overwhelming consensus seems to be in favour of retaining the current title. --Ckatz chat spy  18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you include me? As I said above, I really couldn't care less what this page is called anymore, I'm neutral. RFMs are only for people who have strong opinions either way, which I no longer have. Gran2 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is known as canvassing, taking an argument all over wikipedia to try and win support. Its not working. You didn't get any support on WP:ANI, only one person agrees with you here, and nobody is responding to your request for mediation. Consensus is massively against you, every argument you have given has been discredited and policy is against you. The article stays named what it is. Deal. With. It. And, leave the dead horse alone.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I agree to mediate, I just want to make sure that when you say "mediate", you just mean to discuss it, and that by agreeing to mediate, I'm not necessarily agreeing to move the article. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mediation ought not to be necessary at this point. Trout-slapping may be. Neıl  ☎  15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed as to Anakinjmt's statement. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A swathe of people sniping at each other has been removed. No more, please. Carry on and I'll start blocking both sides for wilful baiting.  If you cannot be constructive, then don't say anything. Neıl  ☎  15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear (as an uninvovled party) why ,mediation is required? the conensus on this matter seems pretty clear? --Fredrick day (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the consensus is NOT clear, and evidence has clearly been presented to support the change anyway. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is clear consensus here, that is why the RFC was closed as keep as is. That's why the requested move was closed in July to keep it as is.  People have seen the evidence and disputed it.  They took it under consideration and decided it was not clear evidence to support a move.  Metros (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * indeed, which is why at least 4 uninvolved editors (me being one of them) have suggested the RFM should be pulled as a timewaster. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to mediate here. Consensus is very clear, as it was in numerous previous discussions.  Also, you have removed a party from the RfM.  The fact that this editor refused to take part in the mediation does not mean you can remove them, and this RfM will therefore fail.  BLACK KITE  17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why I was included anyway, but I've formally declined the mediation. Gran2 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed: This case has been rejected by the Mediation Committee. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This case has also been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 06:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)