Talk:If....

message: It's four dots, no? The poster image is wrong. -87.82.14.205 08:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure. I was unable to resolve the matter of how the elipsis in the movie title should be written. Wikipedia says, "There is no such thing as a 'four-dot ellipsis'." Lindsay Anderson, himself, used both 3 and 4 dot ellipses (if the transcriptions are accurate).    The Lindsay Anderson Collection pages at the University of Stirling uses 3 and 4.    The Lindsay Anderson Memorial Foundation web site uses 3 in the text accompanying a poster with 4.  The British Film Institute: screenonline site uses 3.  I think the article should use 3 dot ellipsis (to be consistent with the article on ellipsis) but comment on the frequent appearance of 4 dot ellipsis.  --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be three dots in the article title to be consistent with Wikipedia usage and usage outside Wikipedia, similar to the example of the Guardian and the BBC articles.   I think I'm in good company here. This situation is analogous to certain song titles that are inconsistent with the Wikipedia convention on capitalization. In those cases, the Wikipedia convention is used so that the encyclopedia presents a uniform and consistent appearance to the reader. I'd be happy to refer this matter to WP:RFC if you are unconvinced by my reasoning. In the meantime, I would encourage you to add information about four dots appearing in the credits. That is good information, it is WP:V, and I agree that it belongs in the article. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree at all. Wikipedia should list films by their actual names: its job is just to give the facts, not to correct film-makers' writing conventions. Plenty of precedents for this: the title of the film Two Weeks Notice is missing an apostrophe; David Mitchell's book number9dream has no spaces, Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation is missing a hyphen; the song Ifwhiteamericatoldthetruthforonedayit'sworldwouldfallapart has an apostrophe it shouldn't - but these are listed on Wikipedia with their proper, wrong spelling. By all means redirect from "If..." to help people who look there, but the actual article should live at "If....", as this is its proper name. Edbrims 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a notice of this dispute at Wikiquette alerts. It seemed to fit the criteria for listing there, see WP:RFC. Please review it to ensure that I described this dispute fairly and adequately and make any changes you deem necessary. Also, may I thank you for your restraint in discussing a matter that you have a strong opinion regarding? I may very well be wrong about this, but would like to hear from others before moving it back (and fixing all the links). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting discussion. The correct punctuation is three dots. You see four dots when the ellipsis follows a sentence, meaning one of the dots is a period/full stop. What to do when the filmmakers themselves have made the error is an interesting question, and I think that'd depend on whether they'd made it deliberately to make some point, which I'm assuming they didn't in this case. Given that the Guardian etc is rendering it as three dots, I'd go with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The possibility didn't occur to me until SlimVirgin mentioned it, but indeed the title could be read as "if ...(period/full stop)", i.e., unbounded exploration ending abruptly, thereby mirroring the film in the title. I did a Google search for '"Lindsay Anderson" ellipsis dots' and similar searches in hopes of finding a discussion of intent by the film maker without success.  I did find that the screen play was published (see below). Later this week, I'll go to the local library to see if it offers any insight into the mind of the writer or director.  (Library of Congress: PN1997 .S472)) Disclosure: I contacted these two editors directly because I knew that they had some interest in this sort of question from their edits to WP:MOS and other articles. I worked with Mel Etitis on Adi Shankara a couple of months ago and sporatically since. I think this is the first time that I've interacted with SlimVirgin. Edbrims, I don't think of either of these editors as cronies, but thought you should know this history. Also, I would welcome comments by editors in which you have confidence. Thank you, Mel Etitis and SlimVirgin, for your comments.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But it isn't a mistake; it's just a difference of conventions of style. Two Weeks Notice is a genuine grammatical mistake, and if we're listing that as it is, I can't see any reason to rewrite this. The style guides in Wikipedia should only apply to original writing in articles, not to rewriting the title of a 1968 film. Lindsay Anderson might not have been quite consistent afterwards, but the film itself is what matters and it unambiguously spells its title with four dots. What's "correct" doesn't come into it. Edbrims 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those are good points. Thank you for finding those examples. In the published screen play (Sherwin, 1969, see above), Lindsay Anderson in his introduction uses four dots consistently.Mr. Anderson credits Daphne Hunter with suggesting the title, but sheds no further light on the number of dots. The four dot version of the title appears at the beginning and end of the screen play proper. Interestingly enough, the title on the cover is the three dot version. The three dot version appears in a list of titles on the back cover. But the four dot version appears on the title pages and in the copyright notices. It was published by Simon and Schuster, a major publishing house, so I think it is safe to assume that it underwent editorial review and was competently proofread. The editor would have questioned Anderson and Sherwin on this point, or so I would assume. I think accident or ignorance of usage can be ruled out as a consequence. The cover inconsistency may be explained if it was designed by others without close coordination with the authors or the editors. This is quite plausible, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: When it comes to disputes about films IMDB has always been the final say according to various wiki articles about disputes and if it lists it with 4 then go with 4. As it is a reference to a piece of art then the director has 'artitic' license with the text and it is a direct quote if that. Most films do not have a period in their title's and when they do it is because of the director's artistic license. I say go with 4. Jsmp01 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very helpful. I wonder I you would be kind enough to provide a couple of links to the articles you cite? I think it is important to have a complete record of the discussion here. Otherwise, this dispute will recur. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adaptation. has a full stop in the title. Edbrims 14:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll at Talk:Adaptation. was 11 to 6 in favor of the version with the period (full stop) at the end. The poll at Talk:Clerks. was 11 to 5 in favor of the version with the period (full stop) at the end. In neither case does it appear that editors gave extra weight to the way it was listed at IMDb.com. Also relevant are short discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/archive5 and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28films%29#Handling_of_special_movie_titles. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Film_titles provides no guidance on this matter.                   What seems indisputable is that using the title with the period leads to sentences like, "readers of Total Film magazine voted Clerks. the 16th greatest comedy film of all time.", a sentence that appears not to have been proofread to the average reader, and makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. I think it is telling that it is used only nine of 16 occurrances in the article Clerks..          Moreover, this usage propagates to other articles. In The Jesus Lizard, the reader sees, "... a song on the Clerks. soundtrack..." The reader that is not familiar with the film (and a reader of a music group article may well not be) and does not follows the link back to the article Clerks., may be forgiven for not understanding that this punctuation is deliberate.              When editing, it is natural to place a period after a sentence ending in a wikilink (as at the end of the paragraph above), i.e., Clerks.. I saw two instances in about 20 articles where this occurred.  The result is even more disturbing for If..... But, the result is fine with If.... For the second example, the wikilink is written .               User:Violetriga in the Clerks. discussion voted to keep the period and commented, "Official title is with the full stop and so it should remain. It's natural for it to be referred to without because it looks typographically ugly when mid-sentence." User:Austin Hair's following comment is "it looks bad in running text, but we are, after all, talking about the article's title." I think that those two users did not appreciate that the title would be used in running text with the punctuation when it is wikilinked, unless the editor takes the trouble to add a piped link with the title punctuation deleted, something most editors are not likely to do. In the Adaptation. discussion, this issue did not appear to be addressed. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I moved the following comment from the article and added the citation to reference list. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''if...., A British Film Guide'' by Paul Sutton 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
If... (film) → if.... — It says in the poster and in the screenplay. Check the DVD, it comes with a copy of the screenplay and you can't go wrong with the screenplay. —Reginmund 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - It is written if... in the screenplay and that should be the last source when discussion comes to the title. Reginmund 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
-For anyone who believes this change is unjustified because of MoS, consider the fact that hellogoodbye is missing a space and Two Weeks Notice is missing an apostrophe. If those article's title's are justified, what makes if.... any different? Besides, there are several RC Patrollers here making sure that nobody removes the fourth full stop. Reginmund 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahem. If the argument is solely about the use of I vs i, well... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter. Charles 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the main argument is about the omission of the fourth full stop. Reginmund 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. It serves in repsonse to Lrrr IV whose desire for a capital I is unnecessary. Charles 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - It is written if... in the screenplay and that should be the last source when discussion comes to the title. Reginmund 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
-For anyone who believes this change is unjustified because of MoS, consider the fact that hellogoodbye is missing a space and Two Weeks Notice is missing an apostrophe. If those article's title's are justified, what makes if.... any different? Besides, there are several RC Patrollers here making sure that nobody removes the fourth full stop. Reginmund 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. If the argument is solely about the use of I vs i, well... Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter. Charles 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually the main argument is about the omission of the fourth full stop. Reginmund 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. It serves in repsonse to Lrrr IV whose desire for a capital I is unnecessary. Charles 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In my research, the incident mentioned in the article about students threatening the school with guns is false. The original script by the writers in fact did not mention a shooting at all. I vote we remove it, unless anyone can come up with evidence verifying it. -Son of ecgtheow.
I agree.  I was at Tonbridge a few years after Sherwin and Howlett, and I never heard any mention of such an incident. Geoffw1948 10:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonbridge school shooting

message: :Image:388875.1020.A.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) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:388875.1020.A.jpg

message: In the documentary film The Return of a Clockwork Orange, Malcolm McDowell said that he had not understood how to do Alex's part, So Kubrick told him, 'Remember that scene when you [I don't remember exactly how he said it; he mentioned a part when he comes through big doors and makes an expression that could be defined as well-defining Alex]? That's how you should do Alex. [Or something like that. Look for it on YouTube.com.]' McDowell said he understood from that how to do Alex. Siúnrá (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed. I will post it.--Louiedog (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[A Clockwork Orange]]''

message: Where is his participation disputed?  IMdB says he was in it, albeit uncredited.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon Ward

message: Again, and for the unlikely last time, the film is titled 'if....' A lowercase 'i' with four ellipses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.196.87 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. Wikipedia does not seem to be able to adapt there programming to use a lower case letter as the first word in an article title. That does not mean that we have to use an upper case letter anywhere else in this article. So I have altered those that I could find. If I missed any help form other editors in correcting them will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 03:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:MOSTM and WP:NC we use correct standard English, not the random stylistic preferences of individuals. The film is title If it is styled as if..... Lowercase titles are wrong. Wikipedia uses correct English which means capitalising names, including titles of films. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOSTM is irrelevant as this is not a trademark but the title of a film. We cannot do anything about the article title starting with upper case, but there is no need to repeat that in the rest of the article. See the discussion starting at the top of this page (the parts of it that are about the lowercase initial, not the business about the number of dots). -- Alarics (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  MOSTM is not restricted to trademarks only. MOSTM uses the following examples as instances of using standard English over non-standard stylistic preferences: the film Alien 3, which is styled as Alien³, and the TV show Thirtysomething_(TV_series), which is styled as thirtysomething. See also: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles. "Capitalize the first letter in the first and last words in the titles of English compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks etc.)". MOSTM is applied to all instances where a title is styled with a lower case letter, despite originally designed specifically for trademarks, this same rule is applied in various other instances of incorrect styling issues contradicting standard English capitalisation. As stated repeatedly, Wikipedia does not lend undue weight to non standard formatting. Instead, Wikipedia uses standard English language, which requires the capitalisation of titles, including those of films. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As MarnetteD notes in his/her edit summary today, a consensus on this had already been reached and it is in favour of reproducing the title of the film with a lower case initial letter, as in the film itself, the book of the script, and the poster.-- 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this "If.... (styled as If....)"  nonsense at the intro of the article? 

message: Does anyone else think this shouldn't be the first result for "If...," but rather "If... (film)" with "If..." going to "If"?  Just because I came to "If..." looking for the Kipling poem.  Twin Bird (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO there is no reason to move this page. Kipling's poems page is here If— with a hyphen. This film has, from its initial release, always used four periods. As I peruse the net I can find no agreement on how to title the poem. This site  uses five periods, this one uses  none as do most of the others that I found on google. Readers looking for any of the articles that have "if" as there title will most likely type if and get taken to the dismabig page anyway. Your suggestion would also require moving the page for the poem so you might want to put a note on that pages talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 18:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually be in favor of adding the disambiguation simply because of the number of "If..." type of articles we have. There is If... (The Bluetones song), If... (comic), If... (TV series), If... (Desperate Housewives)...there's a couple others that don't have pages as well. I get that this is "If" with 4 periods, but and extra period isn't really enough to argue that it's a unique spelling. We cannot load this page with "for the comic see, for the TV series see, etc." because it would be too long. I think "If..." should redirect to "IF" and this page should be disambiguated as "film". IMO.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input and I take your point. I was only looking at the case narrow focus of this films page re Kipling's poem page. You have pointed out the wider aspects of the numerous wikipedia articles that have "If" as their title. As long as we are moving this page to "If.... (film)", since the periods are part of the official title of the film, I would concur with the move. Perhaps we should leave this open for another 3 or 4 days to see if anyone else responds and then we could make the official move request. MarnetteD | Talk 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: The film is being broadcast at the moment of me typing this, in the early morning on Film4. The Radio Times listing for this showing credits Anderson and Frears as co-directors. Does anyone know what might be the justification for this? Harfarhs (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I put on my DVD and ran the credits. Frears is listed as assistant to the director not co-director. If you check this website  it backs that up. I think that the person who wrote the RT listing substituted "co-" for "assistant" through a misunderstanding (or lack of) of the terms. Hope you enjoyed seeing the film (again or for the first time) I like the fact that we get to see one of the few " in front of camera" performances of the young Charles Sturridge. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, thanks. Yes, I enjoyed it again!! Looking at the Frears article here, I wonder whether some person/people has/have been exaggerating his roles: see my addition to the Frears talk page. Harfarhs (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Frears 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on If..... 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/20081121175939/http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/interviews/mcdowell.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/interviews/mcdowell.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I made a change because the film depicts the situation in a private school, not a public one. The change was undone and I do not understand why! I saw the movie recently and it is clear that we have students paying fees and the atmosphere inside is typical for a private school. This is significant and we need to underline this. Even IMDB is on my track: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063850/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.176.185 (talk) 
:The third sentence of the article you linked to (Independent school (United Kingdom)) explains the situation: "Many of the older, expensive and more exclusive schools catering for the 13–18 age-range in England and Wales are known as public schools". The film is set in a Public school (United Kingdom), which is why you were reverted, and why I am about to revert you once again. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Private or public school?