Talk:9 to 5 (film)

message: I've never seen this title ever written out in long form.  Is there some evidence for calling it anything other than 9 to 5?  I mean, just look at the picture of the movie poster at the top of the article.  If spelling out the title was just a way to disambiguate, then we should probably move the article to 9 to 5 (film) CzechOut  talk | work 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, okay, I guess I should've looked at the movie poster.  I guess it does say there NINE TO FIVE.  Still, the relative size of the two titles kinda lets you know what the preferred title is, doesn't it? I mean, I know that IMDB lists it as such, but I gather that's simply because of an even greater need to disambig on their site.  More modern versions of the DVD don't have "Nine to Five" on the front cover at all, preferring a stylized logo of "9 to 5".  I still think that most people, when looking for this thing, will find it odd to note that this article is called "Nine to Five" when articles about the theme song and TV series use "9 to 5".   CzechOut  talk | work 03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During the opening credits of the movie itself, at 0 m 44 s, the title is NINE TO FIVE. Not 9 to 5. --Rosenzweig (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Image:9 to 5 moviep.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 Wikipedia: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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:9 to 5 moviep.jpg

message: Added information about the X-Rated parody, 8 to 4, released in 1981. Generally I wouldn't list such parodies, but this was quite a new phenomenon in the early 1980s, and this parody was shot on film and played in proper cinemas, so I feel it's worthy of a mention. I've included it under "popular culture."
:I see someone has deleted the above mentioned adult parody. As usual, whoever did it did not explain why. Many other films have sections relating to their place in popular culture, including adult take-offs, so why should this film be any different? If you feel it's not appropriate SAY SO. You're not above the rest of us! If no one can come up with a good reason not to include it in the next couple weeks, I'm adding it back in. --HillbillyProfane (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult Cinema Parody 

message: According to this article:
:Fonda revealed that she is also an executive producer on the project, while Rashida Jones and Pat Rosnick have been attached to write a script.
And this is borne out by the cited reference. But I don't think there is a writer named "Pat Rosnick". It looks like all of the July 2018 articles are based on a single source, which misspelled Pat Resnick's name. All of the February 2018 articles (e.g., https://deadline.com/2018/02/9-to-5-reboot-rashida-jones-pat-resnick-dolly-parton-jane-fonda-lily-tomlin-1202304453/) based on the initial announcement say Pat Resnick, not Rosnick, is co-writing with Rashida Jones. Even many of the July 2018 articles (e.g., https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-9-to-5-sequel-is-coming----because-little-has-changed-for-working-women-2018-07-27) refer to "Pat Rosnick" as "original film co-creator", which describes Pat Resnick. Also, there's nobody in the WGA named Pat or Patricia Rosnick, and nobody with that name with an IMDB entry.
So, I'm going to fix the spelling, and add one of the February references that gets it right. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat Rosnick? 

message: * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT with the existence of 9 to 5 (TV series) and 9 to 5 (Dolly Parton song), both derived from this film.  The AFI lists sourced in the article use "9 to 5".  -- Netoholic @  06:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Titles are depicted in the manner indicated by the productions in question. Thus, in these comparable examples, we have each production using its own form: Twelve Angry Men (play), "Twelve Angry Men" (Westinghouse Studio One), 12 Angry Men (1957 film), 12 Angry Men (1997 film) and "Twelve Angry Men" (Hancock's Half Hour). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: addition to see also (?),
It is nice to see things link together in a coherent way. Watching a program on TV (Independent Lens, 9 to 5: The Story of a Movement) I was noticing "9 to 5" associated with "womens workplace equality". It seems like some association should be made (at the very least - see also) between this film comedy and the "womens workplace equality - 9 to 5" and "March 8, International Womens Day".50.34.36.205 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to see also (?), 

message: The title of the film is unquestionably Nine to Five, with the words spelled out.  This was the intent of the parties involved, and it wasn't until marketing folks got involved that it became anything different.  No matter what film review sites, DVD vendors, or even other Wikipedia articles might state, the title does not replace words with numbers.
The proof?  The absolute, most reliable citation there is?  The registrations with the United States Copyright Office.  Those records clearly show that the screenplay, the film, the hit song, and the soundtrack all reflect the same title.  The film registration even goes to far as to identify the film explicitly as, "a motion picture entitled Nine to five based on the screenplays entitled Nine to five".
Of course, you could add in things like the shooting script and the publicity photos for evidence, and even the movie poster shows it spelled out below the stylized logo.  But those copyright registrations should be all you need.
If a move request is ever reissued or revisited, these indisputable sources should be relied upon and the article moved.  The Wikipedia article about the song should remain where it is, however, as the song was released uniformly using the numeric title.  2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's settle the title issue for once and for all… 

message: the opening blurb describes this movie as a cult classic. it's possible I've forgotten the definition of a cult classic, but this film doesn't seem to fit much of the definition I thought was generally accepted. 2601:601:1281:3540:1548:D11E:E3A9:EAC0 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: “Cult classic” is a pretty moveable target. I did a quick check and it was pretty easy to find sources that call it a cult classic, which is the more important point. We should not be going around deciding what is and is not a cult classic, and we should not be making statements like “some consider it…” without addressing who considers it a cult classic (see WP:WEASELWORDS). — HTGS (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  cult classic?