Talk:Set It Off (film)

Fair use rationale for Image:SetOffScreenShot.jpg
Image:SetOffScreenShot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary
I've trimmed the overlong plot summary using a version from an older revision. --TS 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about some editing? This reads like a 12-year-old's text messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.161.20 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below; please help fix resulting links to the disambiguation page. Dekimasu よ! 01:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

– The 1996 film is not the primary topic of the same name. The base name is ambiguous, and there is Set It Off (band). Also, there are songs and albums of the same name. Shall I provide stats and sources if you think they matter? --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 19:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Set It Off → Set It Off (film)
 * Set It Off (disambiguation) → Set It Off
 * Support - no primary here. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What proof do you have that the 1996 film is not the WP:Primary topic? I'm willing to bet that far more people have heard of the 1996 film than have heard of that band. And as for stats as proof, as seen by this, this, this, this and this discussion regarding the Yesterday page, they are not always the best source to base an article move on. I'll alert WP:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alerted here. When I very recently improved the Set It Off article, I also considered whether or not the Set It Off 1996 film is the WP:Primary topic; I came to the conclusion that if it's not, it was in the past, and is more well known than the band regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The movie sometimes gets 1000+ views in one day. The band is gaining some average views. As for Google, take out Wikipedia and IMDB, and there isn't a film on the first page of results (aside from Image results). Bing, there is one trailer of the film. Search stats for other things, like Disambiguation page. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and above -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet still no indication that the 1996 film should not be at the Set It Off title. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How is "Set It Off" not ambiguous? I wonder if non-US readers are familiar with the film. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Plenty of words or phrases that have Wikipedia articles under those words or phrases are ambiguous; WP:Primary topic is not based on what is ambiguous, not primarily anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And speaking of one of the stats methods listed at WP:Primary topic, even Googling Set It Off on Google Books shows that sources are more likely to be talking about the 1996 film, at least as far as the "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches" listing noted at WP:Primary topic goes when it comes to the phrase "Set It Off." Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:primary topic: "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic." But if you are looking for long-term significance, the film fails to pass any other topic's potential historical significance. Usage criterion won't help much. The band has historical potential, as well as Set It Off (Timomatic song), so we'll see... --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That "if you are looking for long-term significance, the film fails to pass any other topic's potential historical significance" is your opinion, just like it is your opinion that "[t]he band has historical potential, as well as Set It Off (Timomatic song)." It's an opinion that I disagree with. You used "usage criterion" in this case, and then so did I. Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And, really, how does the band or Set It Off (Timomatic song) show more potential historical significance than the 1996 film Set It Off, which is noted as being unique for its kind for reasons stated in the Critical reception and box office section and in some books on Google Books? I am not seeing it. Furthermore, I am certain that people are more likely to hear about the film than about the band or that aforementioned song you noted. Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a YouTube video of Setting It Straight - The Making of Set It Off talking about the uniqueness and success of the film; I watched that around the time of my big expansion to the Set It Off article. Beware of spoilers near the end of that video (20:24 - 23:10) regarding character deaths. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and will make it easier to spot incorrect incoming links.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support since the term precedes the film, and I do not find the film to be a worthy claimant for the primary-topic slot. Seems best to disambiguate all topics under the term. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisting. Although the number of editors supporting the move is clear, there has been little evidence to show that the film is not the primary topic thus far. On the merits, I believe there is no consensus for a move at this point. This is probably why the request is sitting in the RM backlog despite the level of support. I suggest that the arguments of Flyer22 be taken up more substantially in subsequent discussion. Dekimasu よ! 19:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The disambiguation should be the PRIMARY & not some non-notable film .– Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is really more of what I'm talking about, though. The film is certainly notable, per WP:MOVIE, and an assertion that the disambiguation "should be the PRIMARY" with a "support" attached to it is not a substitute for evidence that there is no primary topic. Dekimasu よ! 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Dekimasu, the film is obviously WP:Notable, as WP:Reliable sources in the article and on Google Books show. So I don't know what Davey2010 is talking about on that front. If a person is going to argue "support" in this case, then the support argument should be valid. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In other words: Underrated does not mean non-notable. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't need to ping me just to tell me you in essence think my support is invalid, To it bluntly I couldn't give a fuck whether you think it's valid or not, Also I'm not entirely sure why you're having a pop at everyone over voting yet unless I've gone completely blind you haven't voted at all..... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)  (Struck out since arguing isn't going to solve anything & to be fair we all have better things to do then squabble over a comment or 2. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  03:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC))


 * First, don't call me your friend; I'm not. Second, it was absolutely necessary to ping you via WP:Echo so that you would get the point that your argument on this matter is asinine. Third, keep your vile attitude out of this discussion. Fourth, as the discussion that you clearly have not paid good attention to shows, I have not had "a pop at everyone over voting," or even the vast majority of people voting, whatever that is supposed to mean anyway. Fifth, discussions such as these are not supposed to be a vote, as made perfectly clear by the WP:Consensus policy. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's my point - I wasn't bothered about what you thought in regards to my support, Using the word Fuck isn't "vile attitude"... Sure it's uncivil but wouldn't say vile, The last part of my comment was supposed to mean "You're (in my eyes anyway) badgering everyone over there vote yet haven't voted yourself, Lastly - I had the decency to strike the comment since as I said arguing really wont get me or you anywhere here, Have a nice day. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So even though we both struck through our comments above, and you stated that "arguing isn't going to solve anything & to be fair we all have better things to do then squabble over a comment or 2.", you decided to come back and dig your heels in some more? Your attitude on this matter was vile, in my opinion. And stating that I'm "badgering everyone," which, yes, I deduced is what you meant by your "pop" commentary, clearly is not true. The discussion shows that!! Before Dekimasu relisted this discussion and commented above, I had only replied to George Ho and an IP. Most of my debating was with George Ho. Then In ictu oculi specifically replied to me, and I replied to In ictu oculi, as shown below. Before Dekimasu relisted this discussion, I and others had moved on...away from this matter. I really don't want to talk with you any longer; do leave me alone now. Also, don't keep coming back to comment and striking through your posts, as if that helps. All it looks like is you trying to get WP:The last word. You have polluted this discussion with vileness; congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hang on If you struck the damn comment before I saw it I then wouldn't of replied - Come on to be fair As soon as I saw you struck it I continued to strike mine out!, Bollocks have I, As I said we both have better shit to do and as far as I'm concerned you can have the last damn word!, I'll gladly leave you alone as quite frankly this is a waste of time, Also don't ping me and that way we'll have a happier life! – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  04:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Flyer22 User:Dekimasu, you've both asked for more comment. For myself when I made my comment "no primary here" that was after a quick look in Google Books, and yes the film does pick up some book mentions, caught by the "Set it Off is" search test, against which it is the albums and songs which predominate in vanilla Google. But the onus for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which applies better to Paris, Texas than to media products, is on the article to deliberately ambiguate an article title, to consciously go against 3 of 5 WP:CRITERIA, which is what this current title is. Popular culture ages quickly and is deeply segmented on fan lines. A primary topic should be getting 2/3, 66% of all book references before even being considered for ambiguation. It's a film, it should be WP:RECOGNIZABILITY as (film) and as User:Lugnuts says to pick up mislinks. There is a strong consensus here to give the film a recognizable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, In ictu oculi. There is no need to ping me to this article/talk page, since it is on my WP:Watchlist. There is apparently currently no need to ping you to it either, so I won't ping you to it after this unless this subject comes up again much later. The regular Google searches and the Google Books searches (listed above) show that the film Set It Off is more likely to show up in the search results than any of the other mentions on the Set It Off disambiguation page; it is the topic most likely to have social commentary in books. Using different search words brings up other discussion of the film in books. There is a lot that I could add from these books to this article. I'm not sure what you mean by "to consciously go against 3 of 5 WP:CRITERIA, which is what this current title is," and WP:Primary topic does not state that either. Either way, because of these Google Books searches, and the aforementioned band barely seeming WP:Notable at all, going by the sources currently in its Wikipedia article, I'm simply not convinced that the film is not the WP:Primary topic. Yes, popular culture often ages quickly, but part of WP:Primary topic is having "respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I think that the film, given its uniqueness, has a lot of educational value, and I'm not convinced that it does not have long-term significance and does not have substantially greater enduring notability than the other topics with the same name. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And as for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY; we should not disambiguate simply because of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY; many films on Wikipedia are not disambiguated with "film" in their titles; the WP:Disambiguation guideline is clear as to why that is, and I think that the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY policy/rather the recognizability listing and the listings beneath it are also clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AT is policy isn't it? This current title fails 3 of 5 WP:CRITERIA. As for "most likely" the benchmark isn't "most likely" it has to be "more likely than all others combined" - that is not the same benchmark, and this film isn't clearly there. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I acknowledged that WP:AT is policy; I stated "WP:RECOGNIZABILITY policy." And WP:Primary topic is obviously about "most likely," just as much as it is about "more likely." The semantics angle does not work in that case. I obviously don't see any "fails 3 of 5 WP:CRITERIA"; I don't see it because it's not there. And no need to apologize. It's not that I want the film to be the WP:Primary topic; it's that I don't see any proof that it's not the WP:Primary topic. And, obviously, Dekimasu feels the same way. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Flyer22 please read again what I said: the benchmark isn't "most likely" it has to be "more likely than all others combined". These are two very different benchmarks. And you have not proved that this film is "more likely than all others combined". In ictu oculi (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In ictu oculi, I know what WP:Primary topic states; it states, "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Yes, that does equate to "most likely," especially since WP:Primary topic also states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." and "In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." So again, "[Your] semantics angle does not work in [the WP:Primary topic sense]." Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Primary topic clearly states, "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic." We use common sense, tools and/or WP:Consensus to decide what is the WP:Primary topic. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, may I make an observation? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And what observation would that be? That you think I don't understand WP:Primary topic? If so, since WP:Disambiguation is on my WP:Watchlist and I watch the debates that go on there regarding WP:Primary topic, including the current one about removing historical significance as a criteria, I'm sure that I understand WP:Primary topic quite well. What I also see is that people debating there interpret things about it differently. I'm asking you and others to show that the film is not the WP:Primary topic in this case; I'm not not necessarily stating that the film is the WP:Primary topic in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Having one of many works be treated as primary topic here without a strong showing of evidence smacks of fannishness and promotionalism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not the case for me at all, SMcCandlish, and I don't think that it's the case for Dekimasu (pinging Dekimasu to make sure that Dekimasu sees this). For one, I commonly edit film articles, improving them where needed if I am in the mood. I came across the Set It Off article, and began fixing it up; I fix it up occasionally. And while I do like the film Set It Off, I am not a huge fan of it. Similar to how you argue that there is not strong evidence that the film is the primary topic, Dekimasu and I don't see any strong evidence that it is not the primary topic. It's as simple as that, really. But if one wants to attribute our positions on this matter to "fannishness and promotionalism," then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about reader impression, not editorial motivation or proclivities. Burden of proof is on the proponent of something being the primary topic; by default, disambiguation is treated neutrally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a case of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The wording by WP:primary topic is not absolute. In principle, there must be or isn't a primary topic of a similar name. We are discussing the naming of the article itself. So far, the guideline does not mention whether an ambiguous term should refer to one topic or another. (And no, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT does not apply because it says an ambiguous term may redirect to a primary topic, like "Obama" redirects to "Barack Obama".) Therefore, there must be an applicable rule. Otherwise, we are left with one question: how unambiguous is the title itself? --George Ho (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not becoming a case of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I know what we are discussing, and I have given my views on it. You won't be convincing me otherwise on those views. So no need to keep trying to debate the matter with me. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2014 (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.