Talk:Greenlight

message: The article should be improved to apply to it's wider usage in the Television industry as well.-BiancaOfHell 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenlight applies to the TV industry as well

message: In the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie, a literal huge green light is shown... AnonMoos (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody

message: Can this article ever be more than a glorified dictionary entry? The term is a common one, not unique to the film or TV industry.  It is used in multiple contexts in the same way... review and approval to proceed with something.
We can list all sorts of examples... but these do not really expand on that basic definition.  I am thinking that this belongs at Wiktionary, not here. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but some people want to create an article for every grunt they've ever heard uttered. Not enough time reading books, too much awe of lingo. Another fun aspect of WP is that they don't even check to see if they're spelling the term correctly before titling the article. Eric talk 03:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've ever actually looked carefully at encyclopedia articles, you'd notice that this one qualifies rather easily. Sure, the article is short, but it goes beyond the basic definition, gives a quick origin reference and provides context--something dictionary entries rarely do. In fact, the banners are incorrect--there is no Wictionary entry. Alex.deWitte (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Have changed the article title so that it uses the noun form of the phrase (green light) rather than the verb form (green-light). The topic may not be any more notable, but it should mean that the article is more encyclopeadic. Note that the noun form has no hyphen. "Film and television" was inserted for the sake of disambiguation. Pololei (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a dictionary 

message: The article is about a jargon term that can be replaced by another word, the type of jargon that the style manual advice is avoided. There might be terms that can be considered jargon that warrant an article but a term for approving production doesn't warrant an article.—The pages that link here should replace the word with "approved" or "produced" to avoid this term.--John S. Peterson (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Green light" is a common term in the industry, especially when you're talking about Development and Pre-production. In fact it is the most common term for this specific meaning. Producers and screenwriters talk about getting a "green light". They don't use "looking for approval" or other generic phrases. The language is full of terms that could be replaced by another word. That doesn't mean those terms should be deleted from encyclopedias. There were dozens of articles that used the word and link Green-light until John S. Peterson suddenly removed them today. That indicates multiple other editors found the term to be appropriate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove article because it's a jargon term that can be replaced by another word 

message: Is the past tense of "green-light": "green-lighted" or "green-lit"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.15.52 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly prefer green-lighted. “Green-lit” to me implies lighting a scene with green light. A traffic light doesn’t illuminate much. The meaning of the image is a signal, not a floodlight. MJ (t • c) 00:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb Tense 

message: It should be clarified and or decided whether the pages context is about Green light(Film making) or Green light (Traffic Signal)
:It's borderline WP:DICDEF, so shouldn't even be here to my mind.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to see if there was a discussion about this. Glad its been narrowed to the film meaning, but other meanings section still gives it evidence for DICDEF. Might be more suitable for List of film terms. —Ost (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenlight 

message: , now that you have re-titled this article, it might be best to change the intro sentence to use the term as a noun. Eric talk 13:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , could you let us know why you reverted Pololei's move? Only asking out of curiosity, as I don't think the article should exist in any case. Like Headlight flashing and Death threat, it just makes serious visitors less inclined to take us seriously. Eric talk 14:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no discussion here that a long standing article should be moved. If you think it shouldn't exist then nominate it for deletion. It was once before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-light, but was no consensus. I'm not bothered if it stays or goes. A lot shorter but not really any worse than a lot of other odd articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, , so it was the lack of discussion before the move, that makes sense to me. I noticed only after I pinged you that the mover had announced the move, after the fact, in an old thread above: Talk:Green-light#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. , it's probably best in most cases to create a new section at the bottom of the talkpage and announce your proposal or intention before the move so that any watchers have the chance to give an opinion. Eric talk 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you'd explain why you disagree with the page move, this would be appreciated. Neither an absence of a discussion nor an article being long standing prior to a page move is, of itself, sufficient reason for reverting. Your edit summary says, "over redirect: restore", which I don't understand. Pololei (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article has been at a particular name for several years then a discussion of the move should take place. The edit summary actually says "CambridgeBayWeather moved page Green light (film and television) to Green-light over redirect: restore". The word "restore" was mine and short for restore to original name. The rest is the default edit summary.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense at all because a discussion did take place above. You just didn't bother to read it. The point was that the article was improperly moved 10 years ago by someone who has no understanding of the subject and clearly hasn't spent enough time working in Los Angeles.  So it was entirely pointless to revert User:Pololei's move back to the correct title. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to nominal form 

message: :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: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Green-light →  – This article was created with the correct title "Greenlight" on 12 September 2004.   In violation of MOS:RETAIN, User:Eric improperly moved this article to "Green-light" in 2010.  The term "greenlight" (as a verb) is most commonly used in American English and has not been hyphenated in formal written America*n English for at least four decades.  I already raised this issue on the talk page in 2019 and no one has defended User:Eric's clear violation of MOS:RETAIN. It's time to move this article back to the correct title. Coolcaesar (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Re my "improper" and "inexplicable" move: See above. I un-watched (or...unwatched??) this "article" years ago, as it cannot be taken seriously as an encyclopedia entry. In a world where the above-invoked American film industry employs lamentable constructions such as "You need to" and "I need you to" in virtually every production, I don't see any point in promoting proper English usage here. In the context of today's Wikipedia, I see no reason not to  Coolcaesar's desired spelling of this dicdef. Eric talk 03:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 April 2023