Talk:Precious (film)

Box Office Section
I just completed a substantial overhaul of the "Box Office" section. It was badly in need of grammar, punctuation, and syntax correction. I also removed about half of the initial portion of the second paragraph, which detailed the fourth, fifth, and sixth weeks of "Precious'" theatrical release. There were several sentences detailing the rapid decline in box office revenues, and I decided to be bold and summarize the information, without individual statistics, in one transitional sentence. We can discuss whether or not those specific numbers are crucial to the article, but since most every film experiences a substantial decrease in revenue with each week of release, I do not think the information was necessary.

On another note, the revisions in sentence structure and modifier placement were all predicated on the accuracy of the information. I assumed that the numbers were correctly referenced, given that boxofficemojo.com is pretty accurate in its postings.Kp.murphy (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked on Box office Mojo, which is what the reference sited, and its no 65 for the year 2009 at 47 mil and change. So I made the correction. Its likely the previous figure included worldwide, which is not the usual way to do it. Unless, of course the movie is from a small country where domestic isn't the bulk of the profit. But in this case the bulk is domestic. It did not do too well in box office as far as I can tell, but it is critically acclaimed, and the article should reflect that.Lollipopfop (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! What kind of... I mean, Jesus Christ this is a film? How awful someone should stop this from going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.168.233 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Abuse
didnt they say in the movie that the sexual abuse on precious started just days after coming home from the hostipal after birth didnt mary say that in the social workers office at the end

Cast
The girl's name is Consuelo, NOT Consuela. This is a Spanish name that, although female, breaks the -a ending for an 'o', Like Rosario. Stop changing it.207.38.156.111 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Title
Any background on the unusually long title? The article explains why Push weren't used, but why not just "Precious"? Did Sapphire demand it? 88.91.87.46 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.87.46 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly, there was another film in production named Precious. I don't know how reliable this is, but there's some information on the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/faq#.2.1.1 24.192.138.13 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why it can be Precious (2010 film) ViperSnake151   Talk  01:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why, when the title of the film is Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.130.112 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article explains that there was another film called Push being relased. And the Novel had some fame.  Thus the title.24.245.56.62 (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On IMDb it lists "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" as the informal title and "Precious (Base on Nol by Saf) (Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire)" as the complete title. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt#akas --24.94.249.157 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

IMDb, and Wikipedia are simply wrong about the "full" title. The "base on Nol by Saf" wasn't ever meant to be a part of the title, it was a gimmick within the film in reference to the character's writing ability, it is also corrected in the film to (Based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire). It was never meant to be an add on to the title. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the onscreen title. The onscreen title, if different from the topic title, gets a mention in the lede. 122.148.252.23 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it should at least be listed somewhere. I didn't think the "Nol by Saf" part was intended to be part of the official title, but I may be wrong and it definitely shouldn't be eliminated from mention altogether. J1DW (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

30 Rock parody
This parody has been put into the article twice, but neither time has it been done properly. If you really want it to be here for some reason (and it should be a good reason, as it's pretty lame and there have been dozens of other parodies of the title done by a variety of people, none of them particularly brilliant and none of them are listed here), please state, here on the Talk page, your reason for considering it important. Then omit any parodies of the book, as this is an article about the film, and make sure all your details are correct (for example, "Push" cannot be on a movie marquee, as that's not the title of the movie). Also, please cite your source. Thank you.--TEHodson 21:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Social issues, norms and expectation.
This article describes most of the sketchily moments and actions. Writing some more about the social issues Precious experiences, and the norms, unformal as formal norms. Witch influences have the media on Precious' wishes? Witch expectations have the mother? --Jarhaugin 10.06.2011 21:36 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious: Based on the Novel & → Precious (film) – It's always "Precious"; the subtitle is added to merely inform moviegoers that it is a film adaptation for the novel. Also, the current title is too long to memorize, so I used the parenthesis disambiguation to easily search it without using the disambiguation page. There is no need for me to research the title from news sources, is it? --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; given the widespread use of the subtitle (even at the Academy Awards, for instance), I think it's preferable to a parenthetical disambiguator. Powers T 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I think that either article title is perfectly valid. I reviewed Google Books and News results, and the results show both the longer title and the shorter title (the latter without mentioning the longer one). I think an argument could be made either way, so I do not think WP:COMMONNAME favors one over the other. The film is appropriately listed at the disambiguation page Precious, and Precious (film) redirects to this title. Therefore I am fine with the status quo. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Holding off for now; will reconsider. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Support per WP:CRITERIA, which I did not look at before my initial comment. Thanks to BDD for bringing up my previous stances which reference this guideline. It seems that just Precious (film) is appropriate in terms of naturalness: "Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles." It is also appropriate for conciseness: "Titles are concise, and not overly long." While I do not think the subtitle is that excessive, it does have a length that is more detrimental for searching or linking. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The use of the subtitle was indeed conspicuous at the Academy Awards, but surely for legal reasons (Note, from the article itself, that "The film's title was changed from Push to Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire, to avoid confusion with the 2009 action film Push."). It's ugly and against the MOS to have a novel's name in quotation marks anyway. For ease of navigation and conciseness of article titles, unwieldy subtitles alone may be a reason for removal; compare to Borat (RM) or Dr. Strangelove (RM). Curious, Erik—I think your arguments in those discussions would apply here as well. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call on my previous takes. :) I might be thinking here that the subtitle is not as much of a mouthful as those for Borat or Dr. Strangelove, though I realize that's not a compelling argument. I also find it more relevant contextually, so it strikes me as relatively "natural" (to base it on a criterion from WP:COMMONNAME). Unlike Borat and Dr. Strangelove, the subtitle has real-world context. However, I do see that IMDb has just Precious where the other two films have their subtitles displayed in full. Are there any other examples to look at? For example, the Star Wars film articles use "Star Wars Episode <#>: ". My opposition was just to keep the status quo; I get the feeling that a successful move would lead to an opposite request at a later date. Essentially a slow lobbing back-and-forth when either setup suffices. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by your claim that "Precious (film)" is in any way "natural". Perhaps for someone well-versed in Wikipedia's usual disambiguation methods, but that's not the person for whom we exclusively write.  Powers T 23:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Curiously, why else the long title is preferable besides "widespread use", as you call it? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Parenthetical disambiguators are aesthetically unpleasing and ought to be avoided whenever possible. Powers T 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the "natural" disambiguator is too long to memorize or to accurately type, a move proposal is needed. Even if nowadays we can use either the AutoComplete system and/or the disambiguation page precious to search the film, both the system and a page may be updated if changes happen. By the way, I see that you avoided the question and instead dissed parenthetical ones as "unpleasing" and discouraged. Discouraging parenthetical disambiguators as "unpleasing" to use is not a substantial, valid, and/or adequate reason to forever keep the current title. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but it's a reason to prefer the natural disambiguation offered by a subtitle over artificial disambiguation. Only a well-versed Wikipedia user would think to tack "(film)" on the end of a search.  Powers T 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, since redirects take care of search issues, the other important role of a title is to immediately reassure a reader that she is at the correct article. The subtitle accomplishes that, due to its widespread use.  The parenthetical does not, as the average reader might not know if there are other films called "Precious".  Powers T 15:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if there may be other films with the same name, the article title can be either "Precious (film)" or "Precious (2009 film)". By the way, there is the 2009 short film with the same name. --George Ho (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that there is another film called Precious, then, your move proposal should fail on the grounds of incomplete disambiguation. Powers T 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we likely to have an article on that other film? I've looked for it on Google and can find only the one we have. Do you have any URL that mentions the other? Andrewa (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you go: short film and Preciosa. --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The short title meets WP:AT and WP:Precision quite adequately. The longer title only meets either by distorting the letter of the law to far exceed its intended meaning. One might equally expand Dr Strangelove or Sensations of Tone, or perhaps move The Einstein Theory of Relativity to some other title so that this title could redirect to Theory of relativity, which would of course itself be moved to Theory of relativity (Albert Einstein) including special and general relativity to distinguish it from Relative identity (by Peter Geach, and we need an article on it) and Linguistic relativity. No, I don't think so. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a straw man argument, because those articles are the primary topics for their current titles. The film is not the primary topic for Precious.  Powers T 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that The film is not the primary topic for Precious, and that's a good point, but it relates only to the particular examples given, not to the argument they were intended to support. In fact it doesn't seem all that relevant to a move to a disambiguated title. Apologies if I have misrepresented your views or those of anyone else. But the points about precision and WP:AT stand I think. I'll have a look for better examples. Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Precious is the WP:COMMONNAME for the article, but since it is not the primary topic it requires disambiguation. As per WP:NATURAL, parenthetical disambiguation seems to be preferred only if natural disambiguation is not possible, and this is not the case here. I don't believe that WP:PRECISE trumps WP:NATURAL, since if Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire was the COMMONNAME for the article, we would not choose Precious (film) over it on the grounds of PRECISE. We use the title that most commonly occurs in English language reliable sources; if that is not available to us, the guidelines suggest we use the next most frequently occurring title used in sources. If we have to construct one ourselves, then we choose the shortest one that sufficiently disambiguates the article from other articles on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Precious (film). Neither the current awkward title nor "Precious (film)" is what a user will type when searching for this article.  S/he will likely type "Precious" and when arriving at that DAB page, "Precious (film)" is far more clear and informative in guiding such reader to the correct article, "natural" or not.  —  AjaxSmack  22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm curious at the argument above that Parenthetical disambiguators are aesthetically unpleasing and ought to be avoided whenever possible. Is this supported anywhere in policy or guidelines? It seems extreme to me, and to cut across much of current practice regarding disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You could ask that at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not policy, although Powers isn't the only one who thinks that. In most cases, I agree, but in this case, I think the official subtitle is more aesthetically unpleasing, which is always going to be a subjective judgment. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At least for a time, we had a consensus that natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical, though I believe it's since been removed due to objections. That doesn't mean that certain editors can't still prefer natural to parenthetical, though, and I do.  Powers T 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight clarification: "Powers... thinks that" wasn't intended to say Powers is mistaken about policy. Sorry if it was taken that way. --BDD (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical is a significantly weaker statement than Parenthetical disambiguators ... ought to be avoided whenever possible. And it seems that even the weaker statement no longer has enough support to be in the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Taking another look, it appears that the bullet point about parenthetical disambiguation includes a significant conditional: "If natural disambiguation is not possible..." Powers T 19:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, yes, WP:NATURAL aka WP:AT. Well worth another look. The conditional there is the wrong way around, pedantically it's saying what to do if natural disambiguation is not possible, and that says nothing about what to do if it is possible. But probably only lawyers and logicians even notice such things. Agree that the three bullet points suggest that natural disambiguation should be tried first and the second option if and only if there's a problem with finding a good natural disambiguation, but it doesn't actually say that, it just says if, not only if. In that this is a policy and the closest thing we have to binding rules, and that Wikipedia does have the odd pedant, lawyer and logician and needs to be a safe place for us too, perhaps it would be good to clarify it.


 * Despite the word possible, I think this still falls a good way short of saying that Parenthetical disambiguators ... ought to be avoided whenever possible. Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as I said, my contention doesn't just exist because it's written in policy. I believe natural disambiguation is best for the encyclopedia, where available, and the wording of a policy page doesn't change that.  Powers T 12:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

her full name
Why is "Precious" in this article in quotes? It's true that she is called by her family just Precious, but it's NOT just a nickname but one of her real given names (in the film). Her full name is Claireece Precious Jones, so Precious is not just a nick in the film! You can see it and hear it in the film several times. For example when she goes to Each One Teach One the clerk at the frontdesk reads the official discharge papers from her school and asks her if she is Claireece P. Jones. Later she fills out the test and writes down her name as C. Precious Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.38.50 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack?
Even if soundtrack may be notable, appeared in charts, and contains songs that were released as singles or single downloads, the article about the soundtrack is not strong enough as stand-alone and independent from the film. Even high-quality pages, like of episodes, will be prone to being merged, so quality of an article of the main topic will improve. Extended talk duration. --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * *no merge* If famous artists articles link to the movie instead of the soundtrack it will be confusing. And the soundtrack article might get bigger later. MarioNovi (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: famous artists will still be able to use Precious (soundtrack) (which will be a redirect to the soundtrack section), the information on the soundtrack page will not be lost, and after another 3.5 years there is no evidence that the soundtrack page is going to (or should) expand. Klbrain (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Precious (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090216215313/http://mpaa.org:80/FlmRat_SrchReslts.asp to http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_SrchReslts.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong title?
This article starts by listing the correct title as "Precious: Base on Nol by Saf (Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire)" The primary source for this seems to be a British Board of film classification listing that lists the movie as such. Given almost every word except the non-parentheticals seems to be abbreviations that make little sense outside the context. I changed the title to, Prescious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, with my rationale being that the other title seemed to be shorthand for the actual title. Recently it was changed back by an editor who disagreed with me. I would like to get a consensus on this, as I feel it's silly and looks sloppy to have such a title, that may not actually even be the movie's title in the opening sentence. --Deathawk (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No. This is the title card, correctly showing "Base on Nol by Saf". There's a good reason the title is the way it is. —  Film Fan  10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Title redux, December 2017
Currently, the first sentence starts Precious: Base on Nol by Saf (Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire). This is because the title screen in the movie includes these words. All the references refer to it as Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. I think the lead sentence should have that phrasing, and it should be noted what the BBFC feels the "official" title is somewhere else in the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The onscreen title is the official title, which is obviously the first title mentioned in the article. —  Film Fan  12:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2019
The title card includes the handwritten text "Base on Nol by Saf", which does not correspond to any other reference to the title, including the DVD and Blu-ray covers, or the film's own original website (now only available on archive.org). The only reasonable conclusion is that this text on the title card is a graphical representation of the title character's illiteracy, not an attempt to establish the actual name of the film. The argument, noted above, that the title of the film must in fact be all of the words visible on the title card, is not supported by other prominent films. As a random example, based on this argument, the title of The Omega Man would thus be "in The Ωmega Man", including the word "in" and the Greek letter Ω, since that's what appears on the title card of the film. This is clearly not the case. The fact that the BBFC - and nobody else - seems to take the title card literally is not convincing. They're hardly infallible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cianjb (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's neither the common title nor the promotional title, but it's still the official title if it appears onscreen. 90.249.7.90 (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please quote a source for your assertion that (to paraphrase) "the official title of a movie is everything that appears onscreen on the title card (including all of the words, gimmicks and stylizations visible on screen)". And in the unlikely event that you find such a source, you might want to go and amend the article on Seven so that it reads "Se7en", the article on the Omega Man to clarify that the title is actually "in The Ωmega Man", and the article on Dr. Stranglove to clarify that the "official" title is actually "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb U.S. Air Force U.S. Air Force Copyright (C) MCMLXIII Hawk Films Ltd. All Rights Reserved" - becase all of those words appear on the title card. Your argument doesn't hold water, and is not consistent with the approach used on other articles on Wikipedia. Please stop vandalising the article. Cianjb (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a 100% consistent with all other articles. By definition, stylization is when the letters are altered. Added words is not stylization. Only a fool would engage in that "Dr Strangelove" argument. It's clearly not part of the title, while "Base on Nol by Saf" is very clearly a prominent part of the title -- it is literally given equal prominence to "Precious." Your argument that it's "graphical representation of the title character's illiteracy" is true, and it also changes nothing.
 * A quick Google search reveals over 20,000 results for "Precious: Base on Nol by Saf (Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire)"
 * The various different titles can be found here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/releaseinfo
 * You have to stop pushing your agenda simply because you think the title is silly. 90.249.104.64 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So, to summarise, your argument is based on (1) an ad hominem attack ("fool"); (2) the number of Google search results for a phrase (21,000, as you point out, versus 115,000 for "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"; (3) one line in the IMDB page you link to; and (4) some blatant misreadings (nobody claimed that your version of the title is "silly", just not the title). If you want to edit Wikipedia based on that kind of spurious nonesense, off you go. Have fun. Cianjb (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't call you a fool. Read it again. The number of Google results shows it is in common usage. We're not looking for the WP:COMMONNAME, as that only refers to the page title. My argument is based on the fact that the onscreen title is the official title, which is consistent with all Wikipedia articles. Bye. 90.249.63.238 (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Should we likewise credit the production to "LE DANS TINMIN" and "IN ASHLAN WIT SMOKED TINMANT"? Nah, artistic liberty in the opening graphics montage to communicate the main character's illiteracy is not the basis for determining its official subtitle. I would suggest instead contacting those resources like the BBCFC, etc. that list this stylization as the title (inconsistently, I might add, as other listings on BBCFC show it thus) and get them to make the correction on their end.  Google hits are always suspect, because misinformation can spread quickly and just because it says "20,000" results doesn't mean that literally. Click a few pages forward in the results and see where it stops - the same search link you gave above claiming 20,000 really only shows me 32. Even a more generous search of "Base on Nol by Saf" comes back as only 54. Lastly, IMDB is user-editable and not a reliable source for that reason. Anyone, including you, could submit that alternative title or delete it on a whim. Perhaps a mention of this artistic take on opening credits is appropriate for the production section, if there are sources out there analyzing it (here's one), but not appropriate to state it in the lead sentence. -- Netoholic @  18:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're only here because you're WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, and those quotes are not part of the title card. The "opening graphics montage" or whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant. The title card is not. Your Google stat is wrong - there are actually 24,500 results for "Base on Nol by Saf". I'm not presenting IMDb as reliable source, rather showing you the list of AKAs for this title, which are correct with their various attributes. "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by by Sapphire" is merely a promotional title since it doesn't appear onscreen that way. The onscreen title is always the official title, always has been and always will be, and that is consistent with all Wikipedia articles. Also, your comments about "Jack the Ripper" (1973) unfortunately reveal you don't know what you're talking about much of the time. And again, quit WP:WIKIHOUNDING now or I will file a complaint on the admin noticeboard. Thanks. 90.249.63.238 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide what you are basing your analysis that "the onscreen title is always the official title" on? The fact that the exact same words appear twice, once in a stylized fashion and once not, screams "stylization". It is the same as SE7EN or other similarly stylized titles. Are there other Wikipedia articles I cannot find which suggest that stylizations actually do count as the official title of the movie? 24.12.71.170 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know where to find that anymore, to be honest. But "stylization" is a physical alteration, not an addition. The V in Se7en is stylized as a 7. What part of the Precious title has been "stylized"? And yes, every Wikipedia article mentions the onscreen title first. Find me an example of one that doesn't. 90.249.239.208 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Stylize" is defined by Merriam Webster as "to represent or design according to a style or stylistic pattern rather than according to nature or tradition." The words "Based on the Novel by Sapphire" are here represented in the stylistic pattern that addresses the main character's illiteracy. It is then clarified under the stylized spelling of the words what it intends to say. I can 100% guarantee you that if I called up Lee Daniels right now, he would say that the official title of the film does not include saying the same thing twice, once in stylized form and once without it. Your argument basically doesn't exist. You are basically saying that because it has the non-stylized version of the title printed alongside it, it does not count as stylization. Nevermind that every time a cast member went on a show to promote the film, they referred to the film not simply as "Precious" but also not as "Precious: Base on Nol by Saf (Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire)" But specifically as "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire". Because this is the official title of the film. The film was submitted to awards shows under the the title "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire". You have no evidence to back up that this is the official title other than a single BBCFC page and an IMDB page (which, btw, lists both versions of the long title but just happens to refer to the version including the stylized writing out of the words as the "full title") which can be edited by anyone and you even admit is not meant to be seen as reliable, the the number of google results, which you also admit does not prove anything, and your own personal insistence that whatever is displayed on screen must be the official title (unless it is stylized in a way that you personally agree qualifies as stylization). I am sorry. I do not wish to be disrespectful, as the fact that you have put so much time into this fight clearly suggests that it is important to you. But none of your evidence holds any real water. I see no reason to keep the version of the title that includes the same words twice. 173.150.64.59 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's not a "stylistic pattern". That's not even an argument. If I spell Wikipedia WIKIPEDOPILE, I haven't stylised that word - I have misspelled it and fundamentally changed it, as with "Base on Nol by Saf". It does address the title character's illiteracy. It's still a prominent part of the title card. That is a fact. The "Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" part of the title is the least prominent part of the title card. That is also a fact. You don't know what Lee Daniels would say. That is another fact. What Lee Daniels would say is also irrelevant to this discussion. You are mixing up the words "official" and "promotional". Obviously no one is going to promote is as "Precious: Base on Nol by Saf". That would be daft. Once again, find me a single film where the title card does not display the official title, and I will bow to your superior knowledge. Brexit means breakfast 90.249.239.208 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Goodbye to Language doesn't display its official title at all, and the end credits are just people's names without even indicating their job. Smiley Face doesn't display the official title except as a huge (). Apocalypse Now doesn't show its official title except later in the movie as graffiti on a wall. Fahrenheit 451 doesn't show the title as text on the screen, its opening credits are spoken in voiceover. Simply put, the film itself is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and when there is any doubt in interpretation, we must go to WP:SECONDARY sources to establish things like titles. I now in this section count 6 editors that oppose your presentation of the title. You 90.249.x.x (aka User:Film Fan) are the only one that wants this, and are continuing to evade your indefinite ban. Your edits will never stand, its time to accept that. -- Netoholic @ 18:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhhh what are you accusing me of now? 6 editors?? You might want to count again. WHEN there is a title card, it is the official title, and always mentioned first on Wikipedia. Find me a title that doesn't conform to this rule. You still can't do it. 90.249.239.208 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This gives all appearances of Film fan continuing their pet issue via IP hopping block evasion; as such I've semi-protected the page and reverted the edit. The IPs are dynamic, but will start blocking if need be to stop this nonsense.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Precious (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/20080216012831/http://www.sundance.org/festival/press_industry/press_industry.asp to http://www.sundance.org/festival/press_industry/press_industry.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090127003139/http://festival.sundance.org/2009/film_events/films/push_based_on_the_novel_by_sapphire to http://festival.sundance.org/2009/film_events/films/push_based_on_the_novel_by_sapphire

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) 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)