Talk:Vertigo (film)

Dead link
I removed this dead link. I was not able to find it anywhere online, but if someone else can, then perhaps they will be able to put it back in. Invertzoo (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC) WARNING: SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this unless you've already seen the film. The credits in the article list Kim Novak as playing both the role of Madeleine Elster and the role of Judy Barton. This is technically incorrect; she actually only plays the character of Judy Barton. When we think we're seeing Madeline, it's actually Judy Barton *impersonating* Madeline. In fact the actual character Madeline Elster never even appears in the film at all (unless you count the brief glimpse of her dead body). Shouldn't the credits be changed to reflect this, something like: "Kim Novak as Judy Barton (and Judy Barton impersonating Madeline Elster)"? It won't spoil anything for the reader of the article because the article gives away the secret anyway. I am considering making this change to the article. Does anyone have any justifiable objection? Richard27182 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.hermenaut.com/a36.shtml A Swimming in the Head, Detailed critique of the 1996 restoration
 * I believe we typically go by what the credits say, and technically even if she appears as Elster for only a brief glimpse, she does appear. Unless other editors agree with you I don't believe we should make this change. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with DonIago for the reasons they have given, ie: what the credits say, we should not make the proposed change by Richard27182. Also the "Spoiler Alert" is totally unnecessary and over-dramatic, the article already states this. Any reader is going to consult the article - not the Talk page! David J Johnson (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the film itself *never* lists Kim Novak as playing Madeline or for that matter playing Judy. In fact the opening credits list *only* the names of the actors without identifying the characters they play. And the closing credits of the currently available release of the film only mention information concerning the film's restoration. So if we "go by what the [film] credits say," then the article should not identify *any* of the actors with *any* of the characters! If the article *is* going to include a list of credits, then it will by definition be including information not *explicitly* contained in the film. So the real question is do we do it *accurately* or not. **Is there anyone out there who agrees with me??** Richard27182 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is the case that the film credits don't identify the actors' roles, then you may have a valid case (though is she associated with any particular roles in promotional material for the film?). Given the nature of this particular film though, I think it might still be best to identify Novak with both Madeleine and Judy. That said, I don't feel very strongly about this and am willing to be overruled by other editors. Thank you for the additional information. DonIago (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Donlago      I appreciate your new comments and also your open mindedness.  And I agree about the importance of having Madeleine appear in the credits.  Even though Madeleine as an actual *role* in the film is virtually nonexistent, her *character* is an essential part of the story.  I'm still considering making the change.  If I do so, it might be something like this: * Kim Novak as Judy Barton impersonating Madeleine Elster / Judy Barton as herself. I realize you're only speaking for yourself, but how would you feel about changing it in this manner?  Do you have any suggestions for an alternate way to phrase it? Richard27182 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have done all I can to discuss my proposed change to the Vertigo< (film) article before actually making the change. Only three editors (including me) have offered opinions. One is totally in favor, one is totally opposed, and the third is somewhere in between. Absent a strong consensus against it, I felt it would be acceptable for me to make the change and I have done so. Rather than trying to disassociate the actress Kim Novak from the character Madeleine Elster, I feel I am clarifying the true relationship between the actress and the character. I hope my contribution will not get reverted; but if anyone feels an irresistible urge to do so, I only ask that you consider suggesting a possible alternative way to make that clarification. Richard27182 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've removed the italics, as I feel that's unneeded emphasis.
 * As far as your concerns about a lack of participation, you could always ask for additional feedback at WT:FILM; it is mentioned right at the top of this page...
 * Also, just an FYI, it's usually considered best practice to reply to comments by indenting your responses beneath the preceding message, which can be done by using the colon . Each colon adds an additional indentation, so if the preceding comment has three colons, you can use four for each paragraph of your response. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DonIago   Thank you for writing.  I don't mind at all your removing my italics.  I did make one *very* minor change: I restored a missing blank space just before the slash.  But that's all I changed.    I had thought about indenting my previous entry on this page (using colons) but wasn't sure whether or not I should because I'd intended it not to be directed specifically to your previous message but rather to get the attention of anyone reading the page.  When such is the case, is it appropriate to indent anyway or not to?  (As you have probably figured out by now, I'm *very* new to this.)  I've been using Wikipedia as an information source for years, but I've only been attempting to be an editor for less than a week.  I know there's a huge amount of stuff I need to learn about it.    I definitely appreciate the suggestions you made and I will check them out. I hope that you may be willing to help me from time to time with questions I may have.  For example, what is the best (or preferred) method of sending a personal communication to another editor.  (By personal I don't necessarily mean that no one else would be able to see it; I just mean in a way that it would be clear it was intended specifically for that person, and I could be reasonably sure the person would see it?  This message itself is a good example of the type of message I'm talking about.)    Well I think I've written enough for now.  I thank you again for your help in making my first big edit to an article.  And I look forward to communicating with you in the future. Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard,
 * Generally if you're replying to material preceding your comment I'd recommend an additional level of indentation. If you're starting a new subject, no indentation. If you're replying to a comment that isn't the one immediately prior to yours, use the original comment's level of indentation plus another. For instance:
 * Hi, I have a question about how you can do X
 * You can do X by clicking on Y
 * No, that's not right, sorry.
 * Yes it is.
 * If you do that then you'll also do this...
 * You can do X by selecting this icon.
 * Hope that clears things up!
 * As far as communicating directly with editors, the best way to do so is usually to leave a comment at their Talk page. Most editors will have a link to their Talk page in their signature. You may also be able to email an editor, but I know I prefer to deal with WP-related matters on WP, not via email. If you want to discuss a matter specific to an article, I recommend using the article's Talk page in almost all cases, as you'll usually get a wider range of and possibly faster responses that way. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Vertigomovie restoration.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vertigomovie restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 18, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the plot of Vertigo: a little like a swiss cheese
This comment is intended as a conversation starter. Commenting on an acclaimed masterpiece is always a little daunting and writing about Hitchcock’s Vertigo is no exception. Since I first saw it in the early 1960s, apparently some critics have claimed it to be the best movie ever made – a big statement! While the direction is superb, as is the dialogue, the photography brilliant given the equipment then available, and the acting more than adequate, I do find fault with aspects of the plot. If anyone doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know the story, I suggest they stop reading now. To start at the end, Judy’s accidental death when startled by a nun is too much of a coincidence to be convincing. It also looks a little like divine intervention, which is unacceptable because of my next point. The death of Judy lets the murderer off. While she is alive, there is the option of her (and Scotty) making statements to the police and getting Madeleine’s killer, Gavin, extradited. Without her, justice is frustrated so it’s unlikely God would have caused her demise. It also leaves a major loose end hanging out of the end of the movie. If Judy had confessed her part in the murder to Scotty when she realized that they loved each other, there was a possibility of justice. There were many opportunities for that. Scotty recognizing that pendant, and realizing he has been duped, a major turning point in the plot, is not handled well. Since it’s inconceivable that Judy intended to wear that pendant in front of Scotty, her unconscious chose it for her, meaning that wanted him to recognize it. It is a very Freudian moment but the possibility of confession and (perhaps) reconciliation remains unexplored. An important point the film does make is that she was not a murderer, only an accessory to murder, albeit before, during and after. Scotty and Judy remain sympathetic protagonists right through the film and that always helps to carry a story. The character of Madeleine, on the other hand, is left completely blank. We never meet her, except as a falling corpse. What was Gavin’s motive for killing her? Did she deserve to be murdered or not? Were there attempts at negotiating a property settlement? We’ll never know. I found myself surmising that the movie was made around ten years after WWII and much of the US and its film industry was so accustomed to sudden death that an apparently motiveless murder was simply acceptable. The last unresolved issue is Midge, who truly loved Scotty and was prepared to go to great trouble to help him. She followed the doctor’s advice and tried to shock him out of his depression. This failed but she is just left there, calling herself an idiot for trying. I find this most unsatisfactory. There also seem to be odd bits of dialogue that indicate that various protagonists knew more about other protagonists than they should but they are only minor and I’d need to see the movie a few times to document them… As I watched, I recalled the story and always knew what was about to happen but, nevertheless, I got totally caught up into the tension as it increased towards that final scene, thanks to wonderful directing. Despite the, to my mind, quite major problems with the plot, I loved seeing Vertigo for the second time in over fifty years and, well, I might just see it again. Jolyon Sykes (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Supplemental ending version of Vertigo
Apparently something called the foreign censorship committee required an extended ending in order to address the matter of Gavin Estler's not having to answer for Madelaine's murder. See http://www.filmsite.org/vert4.html. The article could be improved by someone who has seen this ending. Jolyon Sykes (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's already a section discussing the alternate ending. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

From Among the Dead / The Living and the Dead
Hello  I'm not sure what you mean by "Use the article's title for 'D'entre les morts' and standardize its use in the development section." I don't have any issue with the changes you've made (including removing the reference for the translation). But there is an issue with the translation itself. Translating it literally results in "From the dead." Please see: http://translate.reference.com/french/english/d-entre-les-morts/tRCdlbnRyZSBsZXMgbW9ydHM= and https://translate.google.com/m/translate?client=ob&hl=en&ie=UTF8#fr/en/d%27entre+les+morts When the French novel is discussed with respect to the film Vertigo, it is always translated as "From Among the Dead." Please see: http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/64090%7C0/Vertigo.html (second paragraph, last sentence) and http://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Vertigo_(1958)  The translation "The Living and the Dead" is not appropriate, especially when used in the context of its being the original subject matter for Vertigo. I rarely revert anyone's contribution to a Wikipedia article without first at least attempting to discuss it with them; and I have not yet changed anything concerning your contribution. But I really believe that, for the Vertigo article, the English translation of the French novel should be "From Among the Dead." Please let me know your feelings; and if you disagree, please clearly explain your reasons (as I have clearly explained mine). Thank you. Richard27182 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of my reason for the change was to standardize the use of the english title because in the "Development" section of the article, the published title was used. My main reasoning was to use the official title of the linked Wikipedia article because that would be the most common name that the novel is known by. However looking at the sources you linked and considering the context of the title within the Vertigo article itself, I think using the literal translation would make sense. Thank you for bringing it up and sorry for my confusing edit summary. I've changed it back, but anyone else is free to chime in with their thoughts. Opencooper (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm glad we were able to discuss the Vertigo article and agree as to what should be used for the book title translation.  (I notice that my reference for the translated title is not included this time; but I find I actually like it better without the reference!  I sometimes have a tendency to reference/cite stuff to excess.)  I'm happy that we were able to edit the article in a mutually acceptable way.  Thank you. Richard27182 (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this unless you've already seen the film. The credits in the article list Kim Novak as playing both the role of Madeleine Elster and the role of Judy Barton. This is technically incorrect; she actually only plays the character of Judy Barton. When we think we're seeing Madeline, it's actually Judy Barton *impersonating* Madeline. In fact the actual character Madeline Elster never even appears in the film at all (unless you count the brief glimpse of her dead body). Shouldn't the credits be changed to reflect this, something like: "Kim Novak as Judy Barton (and Judy Barton impersonating Madeline Elster)"? It won't spoil anything for the reader of the article because the article gives away the secret anyway. I am considering making this change to the article. Does anyone have any justifiable objection? Richard27182 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe we typically go by what the credits say, and technically even if she appears as Elster for only a brief glimpse, she does appear. Unless other editors agree with you I don't believe we should make this change. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with DonIago for the reasons they have given, ie: what the credits say, we should not make the proposed change by Richard27182. Also the "Spoiler Alert" is totally unnecessary and over-dramatic, the article already states this. Any reader is going to consult the article - not the Talk page! David J Johnson (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the film itself *never* lists Kim Novak as playing Madeline or for that matter playing Judy. In fact the opening credits list *only* the names of the actors without identifying the characters they play. And the closing credits of the currently available release of the film only mention information concerning the film's restoration. So if we "go by what the [film] credits say," then the article should not identify *any* of the actors with *any* of the characters! If the article *is* going to include a list of credits, then it will by definition be including information not *explicitly* contained in the film. So the real question is do we do it *accurately* or not. **Is there anyone out there who agrees with me??** Richard27182 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is the case that the film credits don't identify the actors' roles, then you may have a valid case (though is she associated with any particular roles in promotional material for the film?). Given the nature of this particular film though, I think it might still be best to identify Novak with both Madeleine and Judy. That said, I don't feel very strongly about this and am willing to be overruled by other editors. Thank you for the additional information. DonIago (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Donlago      I appreciate your new comments and also your open mindedness.  And I agree about the importance of having Madeleine appear in the credits.  Even though Madeleine as an actual *role* in the film is virtually nonexistent, her *character* is an essential part of the story.  I'm still considering making the change.  If I do so, it might be something like this: * Kim Novak as Judy Barton impersonating Madeleine Elster / Judy Barton as herself. I realize you're only speaking for yourself, but how would you feel about changing it in this manner?  Do you have any suggestions for an alternate way to phrase it? Richard27182 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have done all I can to discuss my proposed change to the Vertigo (film) article before actually making the change. Only three editors (including me) have offered opinions. One is totally in favor, one is totally opposed, and the third is somewhere in between. Absent a strong consensus against it, I felt it would be acceptable for me to make the change and I have done so. Rather than trying to disassociate the actress Kim Novak from the character Madeleine Elster, I feel I am clarifying the true relationship between the actress and the character. I hope my contribution will not get reverted; but if anyone feels an irresistible urge to do so, I only ask that you consider suggesting a possible alternative way to make that clarification. Richard27182 (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've removed the italics, as I feel that's unneeded emphasis.
 * As far as your concerns about a lack of participation, you could always ask for additional feedback at WT:FILM; it is mentioned right at the top of this page...
 * Also, just an FYI, it's usually considered best practice to reply to comments by indenting your responses beneath the preceding message, which can be done by using the colon . Each colon adds an additional indentation, so if the preceding comment has three colons, you can use four for each paragraph of your response. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DonIago   Thank you for writing.  I don't mind at all your removing my italics.  I did make one *very* minor change: I restored a missing blank space just before the slash.  But that's all I changed.    I had thought about indenting my previous entry on this page (using colons) but wasn't sure whether or not I should because I'd intended it not to be directed specifically to your previous message but rather to get the attention of anyone reading the page.  When such is the case, is it appropriate to indent anyway or not to?  (As you have probably figured out by now, I'm *very* new to this.)  I've been using Wikipedia as an information source for years, but I've only been attempting to be an editor for less than a week.  I know there's a huge amount of stuff I need to learn about it.    I definitely appreciate the suggestions you made and I will check them out. I hope that you may be willing to help me from time to time with questions I may have.  For example, what is the best (or preferred) method of sending a personal communication to another editor.  (By personal I don't necessarily mean that no one else would be able to see it; I just mean in a way that it would be clear it was intended specifically for that person, and I could be reasonably sure the person would see it?  This message itself is a good example of the type of message I'm talking about.)    Well I think I've written enough for now.  I thank you again for your help in making my first big edit to an article.  And I look forward to communicating with you in the future. Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard,
 * Generally if you're replying to material preceding your comment I'd recommend an additional level of indentation. If you're starting a new subject, no indentation. If you're replying to a comment that isn't the one immediately prior to yours, use the original comment's level of indentation plus another. For instance:
 * Hi, I have a question about how you can do X
 * You can do X by clicking on Y
 * No, that's not right, sorry.
 * Yes it is.
 * If you do that then you'll also do this...
 * You can do X by selecting this icon.
 * Hope that clears things up!
 * As far as communicating directly with editors, the best way to do so is usually to leave a comment at their Talk page. Most editors will have a link to their Talk page in their signature. You may also be able to email an editor, but I know I prefer to deal with WP-related matters on WP, not via email. If you want to discuss a matter specific to an article, I recommend using the article's Talk page in almost all cases, as you'll usually get a wider range of and possibly faster responses that way. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Vertigo (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: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140123115358/http://www.totalfilm.com/news/who-is-the-greatest to http://www.totalfilm.com/news/who-is-the-greatest

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

“Themes” section devolves into postmodern theory
Themes section currently includes this passage: Critics have interpreted Vertigo variously as "a tale of male aggression and visual control; as a map of female Oedipal trajectory; as a deconstruction of the male construction of femininity and of masculinity itself; as a stripping bare of the mechanisms of directorial, Hollywood studio and colonial oppression; and as a place where textual meanings play out in an infinite regress of self-reflexivity." Above cites one source from a reputable journal. The content, however, reads as dense and at times downright unintelligible. Employs academic jargon. Likely doesn’t reach notability standards for inclusion in article altogether. Seeking advice from others on how to proceed. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that although the text itself is a little on the precious side the information comes from reputable cited sources. There's nothing that says Wikipedia *has* to be written exclusively for seventh graders. If someone puts in information that is of more interest (and understanding) to PhD candidates than seventh graders, as long as it doesn't *dominate* the article or section, then I would definitely leave it in. As in this particular case. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2023

 * 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) Vpab15 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Vertigo (film) → Vertigo (1958 film) – Disambiguate from other films with the same name. It may well be that, BarrelProof apparently believes, we should make an exception to WP:PRIMARYFILM here, but deliberately making exceptions to titling guidelines, if necessary, is something that should be done via a RM rather than a unilateral action. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: My edit does not indicate that I disagree with this RM proposal. My edit linked above was merely recording some notes about the current situation, not saying it is desirable. I have not expressed an opinion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Since the Vertigo (disambiguation) page also lists Vertigo (1917 film), Vertigo (1946 film) as well as Vertigo (1951 film), the main title header "Vertigo (film)" represents incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to Vertigo (disambiguation). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with the idea that it can be an exception and would rather put hat notes on top of the 4 articles about the films (including this one) than add "1958" to Hitchcock's film, because of the extreme notability of the latter (its extremely greater notability compared to that of the 3 other films, that is)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  12:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:PRIMARYFILM is clear on this: no PDABs. 162 etc. (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I suspect the 1917 French film ought to be titled Vertige (1917 film) instead of Vertigo (1917 film), the 1946 Spanish Mexican film ought to be titled Vértigo (1946 film) instead of Dizziness (film), and the 1951 Spanish film ought to be titled Vértigo (1951 film) instead of Vertigo (1951 film), as I question whether they all are really established English names or non-settled literal translations. Even if we do count all of them as "Vertigo", I see 99.8% pageviews |Vertigo_(1917_film)|Vertigo_(1951_film)|Dizziness_(film) for the Alfred Hitchcock film (BarrelProof says 41:1; I'm not sure what accounts for the difference), and overwhelming long-term significance, to meet WP:INCDAB. I see no tenable reason from first principles why films ought to categorically receive different treatment from songs, albums, people, etc. with respect to PDAB. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 41:1 was a mistake. When looking at pageviews for the 3 other films, I grabbed the wrong number – the "Pageviews" number instead of the "Monthly average". Computing it properly, I now get 482:1. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Expanding my earlier comment: If a subject matter specific guideline is to differ from general guidelines, ordinarily we should expect a convincing, rationally articulable, subject matter specific reason for doing so, not merely disagreements of a general nature. The best and only attempt I see here is the rationale that the difference between "Example (YYYY film)" and "Example (film)" is only four characters, in contrast to some other applications of PDAB where concision may be non-negligible. I don't find that reason persuasive, considering that PDAB never rested too greatly on the concision criterion in particular, and that the reasoning fails to distinguish films from similar cases which PDAB does encompass (e.g. Talk:The Boys (TV series)/Archive 1, moved from The Boys (2019 TV series) to The Boys (TV series)). I find the purported film-specific rule inadequately justified, and it should be ignored. And while PDAB's threshold has considerable grey area, this is well beyond the grey area. The page views ratio is higher than most cases which have met the bar in past RMs, and also far higher than Titanic for instance. There is a complete absence of factors like 'recentism' to call the long-term significance into question. If this doesn't meet the bar, nothing does. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this film by far the primary, and per Adumbrativus and other comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per comments above. Entries for the other films are all stubs, reflecting their low notability. WP:PRIMARYFILM gives comparable example of Citizen Kane, which Vertigo (film) displaced from 1st to 2nd place in the Sight & Sound 2012 poll of film critics' greatest film of all time. Masato.harada (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * it says that Citizen Kane requires no disambiguation as the sole candidate for the title. Vertigo clearly doesn't. This has nothing to do with the films' popularity. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:INCDAB. The RfC that resulted in consensus for allowing this type of disambiguation on a case-by-case basis made no exception for films. This famous and important film is such a hugely overwhelming primary topic for its title that it rivals vertigo itself for |Vertigo_(1917_film)|Vertigo_(1946_film)|Vertigo_(film)|Vertigo|Vertigo_(U2_song) pageviews. It averages almost 2,000 views per day, compared to 1 each for the other two films. Station1 (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 October 2023 (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.
 * Support in principle if the other two films were notable, but their notability appears dubious. I suggest proposing or nominating for deletion to truly justify the lack of release year. Let it be clear, policy at WP:PRECISION allows for WikiProjects to set naming conventions, and all secondary topics should be disambiguated from each other. It is possible to be overly concise; WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" (bolding mine). Wikipedia is not being improved or maintained for losing the four characters that represent a release year. The disambiguation approach to film is already very tight ("film") and narrowly chronological ("YYYY") (since it is rare to have two films of the same name in the same year). It is not like we are going from "(film directed by Alfred Hitchcock and released by Paramount Pictures in 1958)" to "(film)" here. We can whittle down within reason, but there's a certain point when that crosses into pedantry. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:PFILM, as permitted by WP:PRECISION. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the guideline specifically about disambiguating article titles (WP:D, which averages 278 views per day) carries more weight in this situation than the guideline about films generally (WP:NCF, which averages 7 views per day), not the other way around. But that doesn't even really matter because even WP:NCF says it "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". So this proposal meets both guidelines. Station1 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. Per WP:PRECISION, WikiProjects are permitted to set more specific guidelines when it comes to disambiguating articles that fall under their purview. WP:INCDAB applies to all articles on Wikipedia in general, but WP:PFILM and other guidelines listed at WP:PRECISION effectively override that guideline. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override broad-based WP-wide consensus on the same issue, especially when derived from a well-attended RfC, and especially when all other similar guidelines are in agreement. But again, it's academic, because WP:NCF allows "occasional exceptions". This would certainly qualify as an exception. Station1 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not local consensus, it is a Wikipedia guideline — once again, permitted by WP:PRECISION. Secondly, WP:D has the same "occasional exceptions" disclaimer as WP:NCF. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." WP:D cannot be overridden by WP:NCF. And yes, there can be exceptions to every guideline, but I see no reason to make an exception to WP:D in this case; there would be no benefit to sending readers to a dab page when 99.9% want this article. Station1 (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but WP:PRECISION is at a broad level of community consensus on a wider scale. It explicitly refers to "specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects" such as for Geographic names, and provides the relevant example that "Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities." Geographic names are one category with a naming convention that uses a degree of disambiguation that some people would consider unnecessary. Films are another such category. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that WP:USPLACE has been discussed extensively on its talkpage and subjected to RfCs, so can be said to enjoy a reasonable degree of consensus. I'll also note the sentence you refer to comes under the "Precision" subhead, not the "Disambiguation" subhead. It has been argued that USPLACE is not an exception to the disambiguation guideline but rather the COMMONNAME method of referring to most U.S. towns. In addition, where the shorter name is the sole or primary topic, it redirects back to the full name, not the case with films. Station1 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says, but that isn't what we're talking about. WP:PRECISION specifically allows for these exceptions through subject-specific guidelines, and such practice is commonplace on Wikipedia: for example, WP:NFF overrides WP:GNG, WP:NCMED overrides WP:COMMONNAME, Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) overrides WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That this film is the primary topic for Vertigo (film) seems obvious, per historical significance and reader views. The film guideline titling page asks editors to apply common sense, explicitly stating: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Vertigo, for better or worse, has gained an iconic status among films, and if I rent a film camera and make a film called Citizen Kane which somehow gains its own Wikipedia page, I would assume and take for granted that it will, at best, become a member of a disamb page which would itself become a hatnote on the page of the iconic Orson Welles movie. Common sense should apply everywhere on Wikipedia, so please consider that it can at least apply in this RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why did multiple RMs to move Titanic (1997 film) fail? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd guess because it isn't the obvious primary, as there are many good films, TV shows, documentaries, etc. about Titanic. Probably if it were voted one of the top two or three films ever made it would have a better case for primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's because — to quote the most recent RM's close — . The other three films titled Titanic, Titanic (1915 film), Titanic (1943 film), and Titanic (1953 film), all receive fewer pageviews; the James Cameron film is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC. We are dealing with the same situation here. And Titanic is just one example, there's also Avatar (2009 film), Parasite (2019 film), Independence Day (1996 film), Joker (2019 film), etc. This RM is not the correct venue to challenge the guideline, if editors wish to do so. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apples and tofu. Most of the Titanic films and documentaries focus on a specific closely related non-fiction historical event, and some are well-known (as is Cameron's film). Avatar, there are two now, as with Independence Day. Vertigo was for much of the 21st century considered the best film ever made (I don't know why, with Me You Madness still fresh in voter's minds), and search consideration should follow (see comparison with my own planned film, Citizen Kane, above). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is little to no evidence that the other films listed on the dab page were ever known as Vertigo in English. It is likely that those pages should be moved instead, rendering the discussion of WP:INCDAB moot. Dekimasu よ! 03:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the 1951 film were titled Vértigo (1951 film) instead, the absence of an accent is not normally considered to be sufficient disambiguation (whereas the presence of an accent usually is). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Classic"
"In 1996, director Harrison Engle produced a documentary about the making of Hitchcock's classic, Obsessed with Vertigo."

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Or is it rather a subjective kind of a thing? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty blatantly WP:POV. I've made an effort to reword it in a more neutral fashion, but feel free to edit further. DonIago (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As a german speaking person I'd rather not mess with that :) But thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornwald (talk • contribs)