Talk:BPM (Beats per Minute)

Title

Just so you know, according to Cannes' official announcement, the English title of the movie is BPM (Beats per Minute), with the original French title being 120 battements par minute, so, as you can see in the references, both BPM (Beats per Minute) and 120 Beats per Minute are used at somewhat decent rates in English press. Though I'm not proposing a move at the moment, there may come a point where it needs a reconsideration once the film has got English distributors, posters, trailers, etc. Nardog (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm baffled by Ribbet32's edits. In addition to what I wrote above months ago, the film is apparently being released as BPM (Beats Per Minute) in Australia,[1] and possibly in the US too.[2] The title is also seen on the international sales agent's site and on UniFrance's.[3][4] Nardog (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Telling words: "apparently" and "possibly". If you're baffled, I'm guessing English isn't your first language? There are references for the film also being known as "BPM"; there's been nothing since the link you've provided in May indicating it's actually going to be known as "BPM (Beats per Minute)". Again, if you can prove it's going to be known this, or that it's the WP:COMMONNAME, take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You have done nothing to justify your edits. The film IS already known as "BPM (Beats per Minute)", whether or not "it's going to be" (though likely). This is attested by numerous sources.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

And even if the film was also known as "BPM", it is only natural to assume it is short for "BPM (Beats per Minute)" or "120 Beats per Minute". You say "There are references for the film also being known as 'BPM'", but out of all 23 references currently cited in the article, the only one in which the film is called just "BPM" but never "BPM (Beats per Minute)" or "120 Beats per Minute" is this Deadline article, while many others call it "BPM (Beats per Minute)".[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Nardog (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim"

Film Fan, this is an editor's personal analysis and not cited. Unless you can support that with a reliable third-party source, then that shouldn't stay there. See MOS:FILM#Critical_response. Slightlymad 10:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes and Metacritic. Both are cited. And both are absolutely fine per MOS:FILM#Critical_response. — Film Fan 15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM, review aggregators are reliable for statistics and aggregation. We don't use every aspect of Rotten Tomatoes; the audience score, for example, is unusable. Rotten Tomatoes is also very black-and-white about reviews; it's either positive or negative, and they do not recognize the existence of mixed reviews. This is clearly problematic, and it's something we should probably avoid. Reviewers also sometimes criticize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for misconstruing their reviews; this is also something we should avoid. We don't need editors to determine the consensus of a film's reception; we already have two aggregators to do that for us. If a reliable source says that a film received "critical acclaim", we could probably report that, though I personally wish editors would find some other way phrase it so that it doesn't sound like we're some kind of fansite. Slightlymad 15:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Metacritic uses the exact score that the critic gives them. The term Metacritic uses is "universal acclaim", which is true of this film. The opening sentence of the section should summarise. I honestly have no idea what your objection is. It's utterly bizarre. — Film Fan 15:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you're the only person with this loony opinion. — Film Fan 17:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest everyone who's edited this line in the last few days stop reverting each other and bring your points here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have done that. It's still being removed. — Film Fan 21:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It is being removed because it is peacockery, and WP:SYNTH Scr★pIron^IV 22:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's neither. It's sourced. — Film Fan 23:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

With Metacritic? Who are you kidding? How about citing a non-interested source? Slightlymad 04:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What? — Film Fan 17:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)