Talk:Sign Gene

Common name
The policy at WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name of the work. The entire subtitle is not necessary when the main title is concise and to the point. For a related example, the film Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is at Rogue One. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is at Dr. Strangelove.

Furthermore, the English-language sources that write about this film do not state the subtitle at all: Japan Today, Kansai Scene, Pacific Standard, and Los Angeles Times. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sign Gene → Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes – thinks this move should take place, while I don't. They can explain their reason. This discussion was created on their behalf. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the policy of WP:COMMONNAME which says, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria." Existing examples of this are Dr. Strangelove and Rogue One where we do not include the full official names of these films. For this film, these English-language sources do not use "The First Deaf Superheroes": Los Angeles Times, Pacific Standard, Tokyo Weekender, Rotten Tomatoes. Normaraga will point out that ScreenRant has the full official name, but I don't find this a reliable source and this particular piece to be a listicle cribbing an actress's credits from IMDb, especially her works that have not been covered in reliable sources. I also have concerns about Normaraga using this source to engage in POV-driven OR regarding this film and the actress. I've started a separate discussion below. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the policy of WP:V which says “the information comes from a reliable source.”, WP:NOR “able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented” and WP:NPOV “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”. Beside Whattowatch Screenrant, the complete title of the film Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes is also mentioned in reliable sources such as  Deadline,   Variety and Coming Soon. Lastly but not least, the complete title of the film can be also found in the film’s official website, on Amazon Prime Video and  IMDb. The WP:COMMONNAME that Erik is suggesting applies to any project that adapts a number of television shows, films, and video games. In this case, we are focusing to a specific film, Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes, not "Sign Gene" in general, in its various mediums (comics, TV series or etc), thus it has to be specific and complete. This is equal to say  X-Men:_The_Last_Stand for example. Here it is a piece of a discussion with Erik yesterday: What you have done, possibly with no mean of harm, is a malicious removal of encyclopedic content beyond all recognition, apparently with the sole purpose to make it look like Lauren Ridloff the subject you are feeding, is the only deaf superhero. Speaking of her page, you have also delete references from articles (ScreenRant, WhattoWatch) that were mentioning correctly the complete title of the film. Again, this is done for the same malicious purpose and goes against the principles of Wikipedia. Lauren is mentioned in the page of Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes as the first deaf superhero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it is not like that this info should be hidden. Normaraga (talk)
 * Normaraga (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that you, Erik, have changed the name of the film Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes to just "Sign Gene" on IMDb. I am going to definitely report you. I will find a way to contact the deaf creators of the film. Something smells with you. Normaraga (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Normaraga, I concur that Deadline Hollywood and Variety are good instances for using the full official title. However, there are still other sources that do not use the full title, like Japan Today and Tokyo Journal. From what I can tell, sources that write about Sign Gene at length tend to not use the full name, and these should get more weight, especially the only English-language reliable source that reviews the film. We can apply WP:CONCISE because Sign Gene is not going to be confused with anything else, and it is still recognizable, natural, and precise. Regarding the X-Men: The Last Stand example, as I explained to you on your talk page, that full title is only used because just X-Men belongs to the first film in that series at X-Men (film), and there can be potential confusion. Sign Gene is not close to being confused with anything else. It is a very unique title and does not warrant the subtitle here.
 * I still see the full title at IMDb, so I don't know what you're referring to, and I don't care about how IMDb presents its data. In any case, the deaf creators do not have any weight in these Wikipedia discussions because they are directly involved with the work in question. Wikipedia works with reliable secondary sources.
 * I'll stop here and let other editors weigh in about whether or not Sign Gene should be moved. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the difference: while you only check secondary sources, I check both, secondary and primary sources to define which secondary source is more reliable. Normaraga (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per policy of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Primary sources are not bad. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.”.


 * Per policy of WP:PRIMARYCARE “primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge— will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.” We are not inquiring matters that "require critical analysis or interpretation", but plainly the title itself as well as when “the film is an acceptable primary source of information about the plot and names of the characters”.


 * I take the secondary sources that align with the primary ones. So, “Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes” is the correct title. Discebaimit (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC) — Discebaimit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * To the above editor who has only four edits, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:PRIMARYCARE are not policy pages, nor are they related to the actual Wikipedia policy of Article titles. The point of the explanatory supplement page you cite is to balance referencing primary and secondary sources. For example, referencing a primary source to write about a film's plot and characters is not bad in itself, but it can be bad if that is the only writing being done, or there is more of that writing than there is using secondary sources. But in essence, nothing to do with article titles, so there is no policy-based argument given above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and most sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Erik is invested in Lauren Ridloff’s page since April 2020. WP: PROMO. Paid work? Discebaimit (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I also stated on your talk page, unless you must provide evidence for your WP:ASPERSIONS against another editor, and also take those concerns to the proper venue, or else that behavior is considered a personal attack. The fact that you are attacking another editor in your fifth edit overall is deeply concerning. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Erik's !vote. I agree that Screen Rant is a weak source, and the sources that omit the subtitle are more reliable and the kind of sources Wikipedia favors, and should mimic the use of.  For Nomaraga: IMDb is even worse than Screen Rant, it's a useless source for determining usage for the exact reason you've discovered: it's user-edited.  The good news is that someone moving it on IMDb means nothing, but the bad news is that your original citation of it as an example of using the subtitle also means nothing.  SnowFire (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV content
, who has only edited this article and two persons' articles in relation to this article, appears invested in promoting this film in itself and on other articles. Despite this film having only one English-language review, they have tried to inflate its importance and relevance at Lauren Ridloff, who played a side character in it, as if this role specifically drove her career.

There is no indication in any sources that this happened; Sign Gene is notable on its own, but there is no merit to claim that Ridloff's career was especially boosted by her appearance in this film. In addition, as part of trying to make this connection happen, Normaraga has persistently tried to add a "Social Impact" section as seen here artificially inflating the relationship between Ridloff's appearance in Eternals and her appearance in Sign Gene. Even one source here admits that Ridloff's role in Sign Gene "was relegated to that of an extra". None of the reliable sources directly discussing Sign Gene talk about Ridloff because her role was so small.

If the starring actor of this film, Emilio Insolera, was cast as a Marvel superhero, then that would be a more appropriate connection to draw (if sources do make that connection). I'm concerned Normaraga is essentially a single-purpose account invested in WP:PROMO of Sign Gene, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox. It should follow what reliable sources say and provide proportional coverage. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, my value aligns with Wikipedia’s values which is to maintain neutrality and completeness of the info.
 * While I understand Erik’s statement about me apparently being a single-purpose account doing WP:PROMO only because I am a newcomer Wikipedia contributor starting from November 6th, 2021 (limited contributions from deaf superheroes, Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes to Lauren Ridloff) I would like to underline that I wasn’t able to move on other topics because of his constant interruption to what I have edited by reverting to incomplete info.
 * While I respect Erik for his numerous contributions in the film area, I have to say that after going through with him, I’ve got the impression that, for Lauren’s page, he’s not doing the work in total WP:GOODFAITH. Here it is what's been happening.
 * My contribution:
 * I would go to Lauren’s page to write down the complete title of the film Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes in the film infobox as seen here
 * His action:
 * Erik would revert it to the short and incomplete one, Sign Gene as seen here.	•	He also would delete these references Screenrant and Whattowatch (as seen here Deleted reference 01 and  Deleted reference 02) since these mention Lauren Ridloff and her connection with the complete title of the film Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes.
 * His next action:
 * He would jump to the title article of the film Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes, move the page and rename it only with “Sign Gene” (See sample here).
 * This has been going on. Protecting Lauren’s page is his first motive even at the cost of not being WP:NPOV. Again, Erik was removing a part of the valuable keyword in the correct title (The First Deaf Superheroes) and deleting references as if to discredit the deaf film and the disable people’s hard work. (No WP:NOR)
 * In reference to social impact, whistle Erik insists that the deaf actress Lauren Ridloff’s career is not being boosted by her appearance in the film, I would like to underline that as a Wikipedia contributor, I collect facts mentioned by reliable sources, I am not talking about "individual impact" but “social impact”: Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes was released in 2017; two years later Marvel has hired a deaf actress (Lauren) to play a deaf superhero for the first time: Lauren is indeed the same actress that played a small role in ‘Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes’. Like Screenrant, states “While Ridloff's role in this film was relegated to that of an extra, it is an important milestone in her career, foreshadowing her biggest role yet: becoming the first deaf actress to portray a superhero in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a milestone of representation that the makers of Sign Gene were certainly hoping to achieve one day when they conceived of the film.”
 * What’s more, Erik, to support his own point of view, has recently discredited Screenrant, a reliable entertainment website with  1.7 m followers on Facebook and 8m subscribers on Youtube by saying that he does not “find this a reliable source and this particular piece to be a listicle”. He is not having “a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, “which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”. Erik is stating an opinion as fact and is using a judgemental language as opposed to Wiki’s policy.
 * After all, "social impact" is one thing, Erik may disagree about it, we can put this in hold, but it does not gives him the right to discredit, delete a part, alterate or modify the title of the film. From sources we have, I stand with the fact that it has to be Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes. Normaraga (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A consensus about the article title can be reached in the above discussion. For this particular discussion, my point is that "social impact" makes it sound like there is a direct connection between Sign Gene and Eternals. Like you said, Screen Rant says Ridloff is only an extra in Sign Gene, so what it writes is simply an observation of her appearing in two films with similar themes. It should be noted how many articles about Ridloff and Eternals do not mention Sign Gene, and it should also be noted how many articles about Sign Gene do not mention Ridloff, which indicates that a passing mention is sufficient. I doubt we would add a "social impact" section to the article of a film that had the cameo of an actor who later became famous. I think it's fine to have a sentence in Sign Gene that Ridloff from the film later starred as a superhero in Eternals, but a "social impact" section is artificially inflated importance. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources from Tom Clerc
Sources that didn't get merged over but are useful. Sennecaster ( Chat ) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Which James Denison?
One of the characters in the movie, Hugh Denison, is stated to be descended from James Denison. The James Denison linked to is James H. Denison, an American judge.

Now, I have not seen the movie. I just happened to come across this article during my research. But it seems to me far likelier that the James Denison being referred to is the person who attended the 1880 Milan Conference and wrote about his experience in DENISON, J. (1881). IMPRESSIONS OF THE MILAN CONVENTION. American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, 26(1), 41–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44461118 The 1880 Milan Conference being mentioned as a plot point in the movie strengthens my belief. I therefore believe that the link to James H. Denison is erroneous. I would remove the link (there is no wikipedia article on the James Denison I'm referring to), but will await input from someone who has seen the movie. HerrumB (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)