Talk:Children of the Century/Archive 1

Les Enfants du Siecle vs The Children of the Century

You appear to have violated the three-revert rule on Children of the Century. Just to inform you, the film was released under Children of the Century in the Anglosphere and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), films are to be titled under their English0-language title unless there is some ambiguity between other Anglophonic countries, which there is none. I would appreciate it if you would stop reverting on the page. Reginmund 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the title clarification on that page that is incorrect. It was released under an English title in the US only, but not in UK, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Australia... therefor it is better known as Les Enfants du Siecle Dohanlon 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales are part of the UK. That was redundant. I sourced why it isn't as you said on your talk page. Reginmund 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused; what proof is there for having this article listed under his French (albeit, original) title? The film premiered in Canada under the title "Children of the Century," and it would seem that in Canada, the USA, and in English-speaking Europe, it is known under its English title. This is the English Wikipedia, is it not? What's the problem? María (críticame) 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dohanlon has only listed one Anglophonic country which had a limited release and used the English and French titles. The rest of the Anglosphere saw it as Children of the Century, including the UK. Reginmund 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article name should remain as it is, and unless reliable sources can prove otherwise, I see no reason for an edit war. It's a shame that it had to be protected because of this; I was going to copy-edit, but it'll have to wait. María (críticame) 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have listed a link to Film Four the UK distributor + various other UK pages - All using the French title - including the BBFC which has to list the offical release title by law! It was released in the UK and Ireland by Film Four under the French title (in fact I worked at Film Four at that time).

The film was released in Canada by Alliance Atlantis. They premiered it at the Toronto Film Festival in 1999 under the French title before a cinema and VHS release (they never released it on DVD). The DVD available on some Canadian sites is a US import of the Koch Lorber Version. Finally the film was released in Australia by the now defunct AE Classics in 2001 for a Sydney/Melbourne exclusive run under the French title. [1]

Compare the US and Canadian ASIN codes - they are the same. This prooves beyond all doubt that it is the Koch Lorber version and an import. Koch do not distribute outside the US (as of 19.08.2007 to be precise) [2] [3]

The amazon.co.uk link prooves that the film was released on DVD by Film Four under French title. It is no longer available. Note the ASIN code differs. A different release. [[4]]

Finally like say "La Veuve de Saint-Pierre" the French language title carries meaning that is lost in translation - oviously it comes from "Les Confessions d'un Enfant du Siècle".

Do I need to offer further information? French title used in UK (England, Scotland, Wales), Rep of Ireland, Canada, Australia versus the english language version in the US.

I discussed all these point on Regimund's Talk page. Obviously it should have been here. Dohanlon 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that the US and Canada use the same release editions, especially due to the common use of English by the majority of the population and the identical region 1 code. The standard Canadian release is almost always identical to the US release, because there's little reason to issue a new one. As this is the direct studio offering, it's not an import - this is the primary Canadian release. Girolamo Savonarola 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the rest of it goes, as has been said multiple times, a plurality of titles does not equal the vernacular title. The only DVD currently in open distribution happens to be the English title, and the DVD is openly available to all English-speaking countries. Given that fact, the most common title in English-speaking countries as of 2007 is the English one. Should that fact change, the issue can be broached again. Girolamo Savonarola 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that. Firstly the Region 1 US release is not openly available in stores in UK/Ireland. This is because it is illegal to sell titles not certified by the BBFC or indeed that are not Region 2 or Region 0. So someone is more likely to find the out of print tilte still in a store than the Koch Lorber.Secondly the Koch Lorber version is available only in Canada through websites and not in stores. Koch Lorber do not sell their titles in Canada. They have a recent distribution pass to Maple Films, but it does not include this title which remain at Alliance Atlantis. Also none of this DVD release discussion has included the French Region 2 release which has English subtitles and is of course marketed under the original title. Finally this still leaves the fact that the original language title contains significance which is lost in translation. I feel very strongly on this issue. Where for example I agree that Décalage Horaire is more well known in English language areas as Jet Lag.

[5] Dohanlon 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was never said that the US release is available in the UK. It is only legal to purchase it in the UK from an online source overseas. There is no reason however to include the French release as it is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. Due to the film's limited release in the UK, it has been released under Children of the Century and the French title. Due to its unavailability on DVD, it is better known under its English title, which as already repeated, is the only title to receive a release in the Anglosphere. Reginmund 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is blatantly untrue as per my information and links above. That is merely your opinion which you repeat without backup of any sort. You say that "Due to the film's limited release in the UK, it has been released under Children of the Century and the French title." Where have you this information from. You have been provided numerous sources that proove this is not the case. The film has never been released officially in any form in UK, Rep of Ireland, Canada or Australia as "Children of the Century". Importability is irrelevant.Dohanlon 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Grow up before you start making accusations of opinions. Region 1 films are imprted to the UK on Amazon.co.uk all the time. It is perfectly legal because it is technically being purchased in the US but imported to the UK. I have already shown you a source that had released the film under the English title. You are not getting anywhere by arguing objectives that you ignore. It just makes you lose your credibility. Reginmund 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you told me that Film Four released it under the English Title and that Koch sell it in UK and Canada. This has been proven to be incorrect. The fact that Amazon sell it is not relevant. A region 1 DVD is not compatible in the UK nor is it commercially available for B2B sellers. I have full credibility here backed up by numerous proving links. You have not dealt with a single argument. I have not ignored the fact that Amazon.co.uk will import it, Im saying it's irrelevant because it is not an official availability. Nor did I say they were doing something illegal. I said that it was illegal for UK based stores to sell unrated Region 1 DVDs which it is. Please deal with the points I have made and do not resort to being merely condescending to me or plain dismissive Dohanlon 09:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Region 1 DVDs are compatible with many DVD players there considering the fact that multi-region DVD players are sold there. I, never said that Koch sells it in the UK or that Film Four released it with the English title. Lying isn't getting you anywhere. The fact that Children of the Century is the only DVD release in the Anglosphere as far as we know, goes to show that it is more commonly known that way. Stop making up things I didn't say and accusing me of not answering them. Reginmund 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very least you implied it by saying "Due to the film's limited release in the UK, it has been released under Children of the Century and the French title." in relation to a UK release. As for region 1 DVD players, again that is a moot point. Most multi region DVD players have been modified by a third party or the owner has sourced a multi-region hack. Finally acussing me of lying in this discussion is not acceptable. Personal attacks including calling me "immature" "childish" are not helpful. Finally it is not the only release as per the Film Four DVD. Dohanlon 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. Multi-region DVD players are not uncommon[6]. How is it an implication that Koch sells the DVD in the UK? I said it was released there. Nothing else. FYI I meant the cinemas. No need to finish my sentences for me. As for your complaints, it is true that you fabricated me saying that Koch released the DVD under the English title in the UK. You did lie. That is not a personal attack. Nor is telling you to grow up and act civil when you are accusing me of sarcasm just to steer away from the point I have made for you that you cannot rebuttal. Reginmund 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that multi region players are uncommon? No. My point was that the majority of players sold are Region 2. That is a fact. Most manufacturers do not provide methods of coding or modifying players. I know you were referring to the cinema release. Again: Les Enfants du Siècle was never released on any format or in any form or indeed broadcast as Children of the Century in the UK. Your Yahoo link is incorrect on that and a number of other aspects. Please be sure of your sources authenticity before posting Early on in this discussion you provided a link to amazon.co.uk's offering of the imported Region 1 disk as proof that it was officially available in Region 2 under the English title. There is no lie in that. So any point you have made I have rebutted. If you would like me to clarify any of those points do let me know. I think it speaks volumes that at the beginning of this conversation you insisted that the film was distributed under it's English title in the UK "have already shown you a source that had released the film under the English title", providing a Yahoo link. You have been shown this information was incorrect and as far as I can see you are pathetically attempting to avoid this now. Finally avoid calling me a liar when I quote you directly. If I interpreted your comment incorrectly please clarify, if not I am correct in my understanding of said quote.Dohanlon 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[7]Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people Saying Im immature and should grow-up is personal and condescending. Please stick to the debate and do not make personal remarks.

Actually you said that the Region 2 DVD players are modified by a third party. Now you are stating an unsourced fact with leads to imply that you are engaging in original research. Now you are stating that my source is wrong? And what authority do you have to prove this. I have personally seen it released in Leicester Square as Children of the Century. I however never said that it wasn't either released under its French title to which is not uncommon with limited releases. Now you are making personal attacks at me calling me "pathetic" and saying that I am veering from the subject matter, yet you accuse me of a personal attack. NEWS FLASH! Telling someone to cut their personal attacks and grow up is not a personal attack. Nice try, but get back to the subject matter. I have no time to waste on your immaturity and if you try to ridicule me again, I won't be bothered to waste my time with your sentimental bickering. Again... if you make another personal attack, I won't respond to you. Reginmund 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say you were pathetic I said you point was. But thats off the point as are region free DVD players. Id like to know more about the advertising you say in Leicster Square. Can you provide a link to a similar UK advert for the film under that title. Can you provide any verifiable proof of the film being advertisted and thus distributed under the English title in the UK. The Yahoo link is full of innacuracies but it is all you have given to date. I have linked to BBFC, BFI and Film Four. I know Film Four did not distribute it under that title as I coordinated the (tiny) UK campaign for the film. All our artwork came directly from Studio Canal and was under the french title. I will root some out and post it. But I want to clear this up so I can get on with adding to the page. So proove it or move on. Back up your claims or move on! Dohanlon 23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that Yahoo! has inaccuracies? I have already provided a link for them. Reginmund 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And what authority do you have to prove this What authority do I need? Indeed what authority does anyone on this site have. It's about providing enough information that an informed decision or judgement can be made. I have provided numerous links which back up my UK claim. You have provided 1 link to Yahoo. To clarify you provided a Yahoo UK & Ireland Movies as proof that this film was distributed under it's English language title in the UK? I said that the page was a port of the US Yahoo page and thus not reliable. You say I am wrong in that statement and that the links I provided are wrong. correct? [8] Dohanlon 08:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of advertising the film was advertised on a very small scale only. Press ads were taken in Time Out on 4/4/2001 11/4/2001 and in the Guardian and Telegraph on 1/4/2001. No outdoor advertising was undertaken at all, so I am really puzzled to know what you saw in Leicester Square. Can you please elaborate on the details. If you want to look into any of the advertising I mentioned above please log on to xtreme information [9] a brilliant source for checking campaigns for anything. Looking forward to clearing this matter up. Dohanlon 10:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now what proof do you have that the UK Yahoo is mirrored off of the US Yahoo? Keep in mind that I never said that it wasn't released under multiple titles. That is also why the BFI lists it too. Reginmund 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The BFI lists the title almost as a subtitle - a translation. As for the Yahoo page it is exactly the same as the US page and has significant errors (including the title) if it is being applied to the UK release. I will explain all that in detail. I think the most significant of all the pages from the UK POV, and I know you'll back me up on this, is the BBFC page. That site lists any titles, subtitles or akas a film has been released under in the UK. So if it was released under multiple titles they would be there. But of course what distributor in their right mind would release a film with more than one title? Maybe you have another example of this. What Im most interested in is the information regarding the advertisment you recollect. As I said earlier proof is a very difficult thing to achieve on a site like this. It is about sourcing information and reaching a concensus. So for this discussion I think we are close to reaching a concensus regarding the UK. You have provided 1 link which is full of inaccuracies. I have provided several - most notably the official distributers site and the BBFC. Hopefully you will soon be in the frame of mind to realise you are mistaken on this one. Dohanlon 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to assume that I am in a mistaken state of mind. Not to burst your bubble but the BBFC doesn't exactly list all alternative release titles in the UK. A prime example would be Farewell My Lovely which was re-released as Murder, My Sweet (the original American title). Despite this, the film is never mentioned as "Murder, My Sweet"[10]. Now if you want an example of a perstigious organisation that lists the film under the English title, I would recommend the BFI. I, however don't understand why Yahoo! as a source should be disregarded because of spelling errors. That doesn't make the source wrong, it just makes the editing bad. Reginmund 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My bubble is in tact. Murder, My Sweet is there [11] & [12]. You aren't doing your research at all. It's letting you down. Any film released since the BBFC was founded is there. Has to be by law. Now as your whole point crumbles lets return to BFI - a wonderful site. The English title is provided as a translation alternative, hence the smaller font. Another example is this [13] and {http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/578179]. Or are you trying to tell me Film Four released the last one with 3 titles?? As for Yahoo UK I never mentioned spelling errors or said it was a mirror from the US site - I dont know where the UK pages are served from. The link you provided includes numerous errors and I would be quitte happy to provide further examples from Yahoo UK to further proove the point. Can we get back to the advert in Leiscester Square... more info please! If there is anything else you would like me to clarify do let me know Dohanlon 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the exact errors in this instance? Now just because you dont know where it is served from, doesn't make it a moot point. I can't exactly give a link to a film not in cinemas any more considering the fact that it would be an old bookmark. Back to the BFI, that still doesn't prove that it is a translation. Those two also have been released under their direct English translations[14][15]. I also never said that anything about Film Four releasing it on multiple titles. I'll veer BBFC point because I accidently ommited the apostrophe which ruined the search but besides that, you still also seem to be engaged in incivility (taunting, see the page) in which you say that "my whole point crumbles". Cut it out. It's unnecessary. Reginmund 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not taunting you I am observing that your entire argument is unfounded and without reasonable backup. You are looking for a get out clause. Do your comments not flaunt this rule though - calling me immature - telling me to grow up - burst bubble etc."The Widow of Saint-Pierre" link is for the region 1 DVD. Not an official UK release. Same argument. That film has only ever been distributed in any form in the UK under French title and indeed under it's French title in Canada by Alliance atlantis (again). Where as for example "Le Hussard sur le Toit" has always been distributed in the UK (first by Artificial Eye then by Second Sight Films) under it's English translation. If your example works as proof of your argument then I can quite easily argue that "Les Enfants du Siecle" is distributed under it's French title in the US as that's how it's listed on imdb. Lets be honest The Essex Film Society is hardly proof of a release under The English title - it's a flyer with a translation (and a grammatical error) and not an example of a release as it is not official in any way. Certainly it cannot be used as any sort of proof. What's it's context? How official is it? There is not even copyright information on it. This could be for a showing in someone's living room! Its akin to me showing it as "Confesiones intimas de una mujer" and claiming that as the title. "Les Amants du Pont-Neuf" has been distributed in the uk only under it's French title by Artificial Eye and later Arrow films. Ditto "Les Enfants du Siècle" and "La Veuve de Saint-Pierre". BBFC confirms this, vindicated by your BBFC example. If it's released under a title it's there. I will deal with Yahoo in my next post once you have clarified my questions to you about it. I also don't understand why you say it's not a moot point where the site is served from. We don't know where the BFI is served from for example. Finally Im also still interested in the Leiscester Square advert. You introduced it to your argument and left it floating. I think it needs clarification or revoking Dohanlon 08:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't exactly give a link to a film not in cinemas any more considering the fact that it would be an old bookmark then it is not permissible evidence. Dohanlon 15:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need that evidence anyway. I have the Yahoo! link. You need to prove that it is copied from the US site, otherwise, it is original research. Reginmund 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words it's original research? What about Leicester square and a pathetic mailer with a massive glaring error that you cant and wont verify. Are they original research? You shouldnt post it if you wont verify it. As I did with the UK DVD, and your incorrect point about the BBFC. You do need more evidence for a number of reasons: 1. I have provided 3 reliable links which contradict your link 2. The link you provided contains at least 2 factual errors which means relying on it as proof of the UK title is impossible and prooves it is a port of the US page. Because the errors are US specific. Please cite your sources or concede you are incorrect. Dohanlon 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything I said about the BBFC is backed up here [16]. Please confirm for me what your Yahoo link prooves or if you prefer disprooves in my argument. Dohanlon 19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How is a link original research? You still haven't proved it to be inverifiable. Reginmund 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You havent dealt with any of my links. I have asked you to confirm why you think this link is correct and my links are incorrect. I have provided 3 sites and discredited your initial DVD claims. I feel you need to justify why Yahoo! UK & Ireland should be relied upon more than than 2 official bodies and the actual distributor. What is there about it thats reliable. Please clarify. It differs from the 3 links I provided. Explain why. Dohanlon 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said that an of your links were incorrect. Reginmund 19:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting there. What does the Yahoo! link proove? Dohanlon 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It proves that Children of the Century was also released under its English title in the UK Reginmund 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also clarify this: Due to the film's limited release in the UK, it has been released under Children of the Century and the French title Dohanlon 20:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

t proves that Children of the Century was also released under its English title in the UK by what company and in what format Dohanlon 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it has an English page in the UK and French page, it goes to show its multiple release titles I also never said DVD if that's what you mean. Reginmund 20:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No it merely proves the translation is correct. Please clarify the questions above. It proves that Children of the Century was also released under its English title in the UK by what company and in what format. A title translation is not the same thing. Please answer the questions. Im finding you evasive. Dohanlon 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it has an English page in the UK and French page I dont quite understand this, Please explain or rephrase when you are answering the questions above. Thanks. Dohanlon 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's arse how you find me. What gives you the idea that Yahoo! is a translation. Reginmund 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it gives the title in English on th UK page (littered with inaccuracies) when it has never been released in the UK under it's english language title. Please clarify the above questions regarding the source proof you place so much faith in or concede and allow me to get on developing the page. Thanks. Dohanlon 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually as an aside I have just put in my Film Four R2 copy for the first time in years and it doesnt even translate the title of the film in the subtitles!! How amusing... Dohanlon 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been released under its English title. You can't assume that it is the wrong title because of inaccuracies on the page. That is original research. If you have a UK Region 2 copy, I would be glad to see a link. Reginmund 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have the Film Four too? Ive just watched it for the first time in years. It has been released under its English title. You can't assume that it is the wrong title because of inaccuracies on the page you provide me a reliable source such as BBFC and I will happily concede... as it is I think you should! Inaccuracies totally destroy any value of a source. How can you trust a source full of innacuracies. Im still awaiting your clarification of my questions above. Im amazed you have the Film Four version as you claimed early on in this "discussion" that it didnt exist... Still it's all here for posterity... Now back to your claim of a UK release with english title. Proove it and I will concede. A Yahoo! limk alone is not enought... You havent answered my questions btw... still evasive!!! Dohanlon 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a UK Region 2 copy, I would be glad to see a link. I don't understand what you mean. I provided a link and an ASIN number early on. If you mean you want me to scan the cover... fine, but it's not really something that is varifiable. Dohanlon 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not scan the cover. Any generic release must have a link from an online retailer such as Amazon. Reginmund 00:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am finding hard to follow this discussion, since neither of you are using the normal conventions for talk pages, set out in the Talk page guidelines. This section here is also old; and seems to make reference to discussions and links actually given on user talk pages. Just for clarity, it might be worth leaving this section alone, and continuing below. I think I have already provided what you request in the recent section #Details of the first releases in the UK, in with a list of linked references for the cinematic run and the preceding tour. In any case, I have provided the DvD retail link again, and details, in #Details of the UK region 2 DvD release, Sep 2001. See if that is what you are wanting. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the apostrophe in its

{{editprotected}} The article uses an incorrect apostrophe at three locations in the text. The possessive its does not take an apostrophe. Here are the affected sentences, with the correction applied. A fourth occurrence in relation to the North American debut is correct already.

• Children of the Century made its world premiere out of competition at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival before being released in French theatres on September 22 1999.
• The film mades its UK debut at the 2000 Renault French Film Festival in London before going on general release in April 2001.
• Les Enfants du Siècle was released under the English language title Children of the Century in the US by Koch Lorber Films, but retained its French language title while on release in the UK, Canada and Australia.

Dropped in to look at the Wikiquette alert, but was struck immediately by this far more crucial matter... :-) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. I suppose having this here was an easy way for an editor to put in the "citation requested" tag. Curveaway: you have modified my own comment in a talk page. That's not really kosher. Just a quiet word in your ear for future reference... I don't mind all that much but you should say something about the change here at the talk page as well.

So: for the record. The "citation requested" above was added by Curveaway, not by me. I would not have added it, myself. It looks to me that the discussion has established this tolerably well already. On the other hand, I'm not sure if we actually have reliable sources. Some links are down for me, at present. The edit comment provided by Curveaway suggests that the details given here are in conflict with the IMDB. I don't think that is true. If anything the IMDB suggests that the release in Canada and in the UK was under the original French title... which is certainly what I would expect. The English title may have been given as a translation; but not as the primary release title. That seems to be a common confusion on this page so far, and this appears to be the issue with IMDB as well.

• The main IMDB entry for the film lists it under the original title as Enfants du siècle, Les. here.
• That page also lists the alternative name as follows:

Also Known As: The Children of the Century (Canada: English title) (Europe: English title) (USA)

• The alternative names in Europe and Canada are given simply as "English title", which seems to mean no more than that this is how the title may be translated into English. In the USA, however, the name is given unqualified, suggesting the way that the film is actually identified in the USA.
• Note that even Europe is listed here in the same way as Canada. I trust no-one is seriously going to think Europe prefers the English over the original French!
• Canada is bilingual. This was also the first release. Suggesting the Canada release gave precedence to anything other than the original title is just weird.
• For the USA to give precedence to the English translation over the French original, however, is unremarkable.
• Although I am Australian, I can't see anything about the Australian release listed. I'd hope we'd follow along with Europe and Canada; but I can't be sure.
• The IMDB entry for the film also lists release information: here. In all cases, the listing goes to the main title of the film, which is Enfants du siècle, Les. There are some release dates hyperlinked; all the release listings give the primary French title, even in the USA. So I guess that does not distinguish an actual release title.

It seems to me that Dohanlon has the basic facts right, but that he needs to relax a bit and focus upon giving information clearly and calmly, and precisely. (And with careful attention to apostrophes... :-) Sources would be great. It is much more important to give them with great precision than to focus upon berating the unwashed.

Unfortunately (IMO) the facts may not be enough to carry the dispute. There is a case for preferring an English title, if a well accepted English title exists. That seems to be the major basis for a decision at wikipedia. Personally, I think the original title would be the better choice; even in the USA. It is what is chosen in the IMDB site, for example. But I'm not going to worry if the wrong version is the one that stands, as long as there is a redirect from the original title that I prefer. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Because the article was protected, I added [fact] tag to this talk page.

• It is unrelated what Duae Quartunciae believe. → WP:ATT
• I did not say my opinion. → WP:NPOV
• Canada & Europe: French title obviously contradicts IMDB here, so the source is necessary. → WP:V　
• You need to prove that the IMDB link is wrong, otherwise, it is original research. → WP:OR
• Source please ? → WP:CITE

Curveaway 11:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you could not edit the main page. I am just asking that you take care in editing my comments in the talk page, please. Strictly speaking you should not be editing other people's comments at a talk page at all. I'm not really all that concerned, but just letting you know the conventions that apply. No offense is intended.

Of course it is irrelevant what I believe. That's why I spelt out in some detail what is on the IMDB data base. Nothing there at all has any suggestion that the release in Europe or Canada was not primarily under its original French title. It is possible that an English translation was given, and certainly English translations were given later in the UK. But even in the UK release, the headline title was still the original French under which it was produced. You can see this in a poster for the original April run at West End, and linked from the poster collection for the film at IMDB here. That can be used as a reference for the use of the French title as the main identifier in the UK run. The English translation is there as well, of course, but as a small footnote only. The main title for the film is Les Enfants du Siècle — just as throughout IMDB itself.

All that IMDB states is that there is also an English title. There's no mention anywhere that it has primacy over the original French. It seems to be simply a translation, for the benefit of English speakers; and not the primary identifier except in the USA.

The film was apparently shown in Cannes in 1999, and had a world premiere in Toronto in 1999. I guess that would mean Cannes had to be an advance screening. The idea that one needs to find some source for suggesting that these showings were not using the original French title is distinctly odd. It's a French film. It was made with a French title. It had an advance showing at a French film festival.... and you want a source to justify a claim that it retained its French title in these showings? Oh boy. I'll see what can be found, but this really strikes me as pretty bizarre. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not say my opinion. However, Cannes does not matter really. (Are you foolish fellow ?) If there is the opinion of other people, please. Curveaway 12:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to see if I could help with a Wikiquette alert. I'm hoping to help provide some useful input with a cool head. One of the things we'd like to avoid is personal remarks about other editors. They don't help anyone.

Note that the text you have challenged does not say that only French was used. All that the text you have challenged is saying is that the French was retained... that is, not totally replaced. All that is needed to defend this is to show that the French was used, not that it was exclusive. If you really need this to be verified for the premiere of a French film in a country with French as an official language, then okay. I guess someone might be able to do that.

The UK release has been sourced for you now. I presume that is not a problem any more. They did indeed retain the French title as the major title of the film; with English as a footnote giving the translated meaning. I showed a poster for the film, and Dohalon had also given the ASIN for the DVD released in the UK in 2001, which uses the French title as well.

The other point that would be nice if we can agree upon is that the IMDB does not anywhere deny that the film retained its French title in any of the releases. They only say that the film is also known as "Children of the Century", which is an English translation of the title. All the listings and references in the IMDB itself use the French as the primary identifier. IMDB has nothing anywhere to deny that the French was retained in European and Canadian releases. From other sources, it seems that in a later release in the USA, the original title was not used.

Is this all okay so far? Let me summarize

• That a French film retained its French title at the premiere in a country with French as an official language, has not been verified, and some editors would like to see a source.
• That the same film retained its French title in a later release in the UK, has been verified by showing an English promotional poster for the release with the English translation given as a footnote to the main French title. The DVD released in the UK has also been shown to use a French title.
• We don't have a source for the Australian release; you can leave it out if none it found.
• That the USA release was made primarily under an English translation of the title is not in dispute.

There's no rush on this, by the way. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the UK poster link. I would like to clarify that.

• Film Four are the films only distributer (to date) in the UK and Ireland. Their site uses French title only. Also BBFC uses French title only. That's significant as any title must be listed by BBFC and all films being released must be classified - there is no "unrated" option in the UK as in USA. Where a film has both a well known French and English title the distributer may submit both as Artificial Eye did with Caché/Hidden. However not with this film.
• Reginmunds only UK proof was a Yahoo UK & Ireland page which uses the English title. However that page is not reliable for proof of use of the English title as it lists Empire Pictures as the distributor which is incorrect. They released the film in cinemas in the US only. The date given is the US release date. Therefor this page is not UK information but in fact US information, backed up by the info from Film Four and BBFC.
• The Cannes Gala is irrelevant to this. We know they used the French title. The world premiere was at Toronto under the French title - before there was a US or Canadian distributor.
• The film was released in Cinemas and on VHS in French by Allaince Atlantis using the French title.
• In the US Empire Pictures released it in the Cinema and Koch Lorber on DVD under the English translation (with their own keyart)
• The Australian run was very short in Sydney & Melbourne only under the French title.
• As the film is known in the UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia under the French title and the title holds meaning lost if translated I feel this should be under French title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohanlon (talk • contribs) 14:35, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the dispute here is about, but the three instances of it's can wait until the page is unprotected. Please find a compromise on the dispute and then request unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That is good advice. This is not urgent, and that is the main message for everyone. Be WP:COOL.

It seems to me that there are two quite different issues.

1. The name under which the page should exist. This is not a content question; but a question of policy for foreign names. Addressing it as a content dispute misses the point. It seems here that there is a consensus for using English names when available as a matter of policy, and so it is going to be disruptive to fuss over that particular matter when protection is restored. No meaning is lost by use of the English title. The French title can redirect here, and the text shows the French title prominently.
2. The use of the French title in early releases outside the USA. This is a content question. It should be able to verify appropriately that the premiere and the early versions did indeed retain the French title, prior to introduction of an English translation that is now widely available. With this appropriately sourced, there should be no objection to this as a matter of relevant encyclopedic content.

Do not confuse these two distinct points. Neither one actually bears upon the resolution of the other.

Oh... and there is still the third point about correct use of apostrophes. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a matter of point as per the IMDb - it always identifies the film by the original language title. Even if that title is never used outside of its home country. So IMDb preference itself cannot be used as an argument. Girolamo Savonarola 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the point being made is not what the IMDB uses as the main title, but the fact that it gives the English version as the title for the US and as an international translation for UK and Canada. It provides further back up to the point that the film is only well known under the English title in the US. Dohanlon 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is verifiable to day that it is better known in French outside of the U.S.. The French title gets 869 hits in the U.K.[17] and the English title gets 1,420[18]. Reginmund 00:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Database shouldn't enter this debate. There are plenty of reliable sources that supersede it, per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. The film has been released as Children of the Century in the US and UK,[19] among other places, making it the most common title. In Canada almost all of our DVDs are ports or imports of American DVDs. This isn't meant as a slight against the original title, it's just going to help this article get found more easily in search engines. Doctor Sunshine talk 00:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the BBFC debate above supercedes any allocine links. If it had been released in any form under that title in the UK it would be listed as such on BBFC. Dohanlon 15:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact Allocine.co.uk lists Paris Je T'aime incorrectly also. Not reliable for title verification [20] Dohanlon 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Soooooo... why is allocine not reliable? Reginmund 17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the link provided shows that it translates all titles. "Paris, Je T'Aime" was not released under an English title. Similarily neither was "Les Enfants du Siecle", the DVD listsing on the Allocine UK page supports this. Question answered. Now back to your Yahoo UK page. It has been discredited and you have not dealt with that after standing by it for so long. Lets face the facts the BBFC alone prooves this whole point. Dohanlon 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually you still haven't disproven Yahoo. Reginmund 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't dismiss an entire site based on one title. They have every version of Les Miserables,[21] The River,[22] Here and Elsewhere,[23] and many more by their French titles. You haven't provided any empirical proof that Paris, je t'aime was never released under an English title anywhere. No source is perfect but it's certainly reliable and light years ahead of the user-submitted IMDb. Doctor Sunshine talk 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have prooved that Yahoo is unreliable from the UK point of view on this particular title. The information is US specific. Therefor it is unreliable in this context. End of. As for Allocine - well the BBFC prooves my point on that beyond doubt. To reiterate by law if a film is listed under any title it must be listed under that title. I wonder why it is "light years" ahead of imdb? Dohanlon 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So where exactly is your proof that the information is US-specific? Reginmund 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mathematical theorem for which proof is the right word. None of the listings (imdb, yahoo, whatever) actually give you particularly useful information about the form in which the film was first released in the UK. But given the date, it would be rather startling for it not to be in the French. The details of the DVDs that have been given, with their dates, indicate that the English language releases come after the UK release, and the posters shown show it with the French as the main title. Anything else would be extremely surprising, that early on.

It's looking to me that what ought to be a fairly simply matter of encyclopedic information has been distorted by too much insistence on the name of the page. That debate seems to be done; Wikipedia uses the English language long as that is in common use in the present, regardless of original names or the title used in original releases. So let that aside for the moment. The English title is the appropriate name of the page.

As well as fuss about the page name, there is also a matter of encyclopedic information that the Film was originally in French, and was originally released with English subtitles when it appeared in the English speaking world (UK), as a French film and with a French title. The poster from the UK release shows that, as do the details of the various DVDs. It's also precisely what you should expect.

It is also a matter of encyclopedic information that an English speaking version was produced a bit later on, which is now widely distributed to English speaking audiences.

It's starting to look to me that in the enthusiasm for beating down the push for the change of name of the page you are overstepping the bounds of good sense, to actually want to argue that the UK release was in English. There's no evidence of that at all. The names used in web databases years afterward certainly don't tell you anything about the UK release. The poster, and the DVD details however, do give you that information sufficient to show that this was a French film originally given subtitles for first use with English audiences. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Details of the first releases in the UK

Reginmund regarding proof, the information on the BBFC, the Film Four site and umpteen other UK sites show that it was released in 2001 in the UK. You really need to justify why the Yahoo information is correct and UK specific as it differs from numerous other official sources provided to you. Can you please justify why the Yahoo information is reliable? Dohanlon 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You just really need to justify why Yahoo! is wrong. Reginmund 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He's done that already, but I think I can put together the evidence here a bit better. Still, there's been enough to show that yahoo cannot be describing the original release. The date, and the distributor, is for a later release. The yahoo link that everyone is talking about is not even given on this page! I had to hunt it down on your talk pages. Here it is:

• The Children of the Century 2002

This is not describing the original UK release. The film had its UK release on 29 September 2000.(See Release dates at imdb). It was followed by a public release in the London West End in April 2001. The Yahoo link seems to be speaking of the release of the Empire pictures release two years after the original UK release. I am not sure that yahoo is actually wrong; it may be just describing a different release. Whether it is wrong, or simply talking about a particular release of a new English version, is all a bit beside the point. The demonstration that the original UK release was in 2000 and in the French language is pretty unambiguous.

• Here is an article from the Independent in London, in 1 October 2000, describing the original festival at which the film was shown in the UK. So, who's afraid of a few subtitles? We are. Note the title! Author is Demetrios Matheou. The show is actually "Martell French Film Tour", not "Renault Film Festival". The major theme of this article is that the show uses English subtitles.
• Here is a brief review from 3 Nov 2000, in The Oxford Mail, of Les Enfants du Siecle, evidently from this same tour.[24] A simultaneous review of one of the other films in the tour confirms the association with "Martell French Film Tour".[25]

The release in public cinemas was in April 2001.

• Here is the poster from the West End run in April 2001. [26]
• Here is an article from the Independent in London, in April 2001, describing the West end run of Les enfants du siecle[27]
• Here is an article from the Telegraph in London, in April 2001, describing the West end run of Les enfants du siecle[28]
• Here is a DvD released in the UK in September 2001, in French (English subtitles) [29]

I've seen nothing at all to contradict this totally unsurprising detail. The yahoo listing is plainly for a different release that came out after all the above, and does not correspond to the original UK release. But do note, this has nothing to do with the name of the page. It is simply a matter of trying to clear up what should be a minor and obvious item of encyclopedic detail. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, I recall two releases of the film. I just assumed that it was re-released under the English title and its the only English version available on DVD. Reginmund 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But can you clarify what you mean by your point? Are we in agreement? If so, that would be great, and would resolve most of the issues, I think. Just to be crystal clear... my point is the following.

• The first showing in the UK was in Sept 2000, as part of a specialist Martell French Film Tour.
• The first showing in a conventional cinema run in the UK was in April 2001, as a French film with English subtitles.
• The first DvD release in the UK was in September 2001 (at least) again as a French film with English subtitles.
• The English language release was in September 2002. (This is the one that is the basis of the yahoo link.)

Currently, the English language release is probably the most widely available and used in the English speaking world (UK included, I suspect), and using the English title for identifying the page seems to be the proper style by Wikipedia guidelines. As a matter of encyclopedic detail, the first UK release and cinema run with English only as subtitles, and the film was identified by its original French name. It may also be of interest that the original English language release was significantly cut, and that a subsequent release in 2004 or thereabouts (I think) gave the full uncut original in an English language form. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Details of the UK region 2 DvD release, Sep 2001

In recent comments in an old section (diff), Reginmund requests a link to some online retailer for a UK region 2 copy of a DvD for the film. I am not sure, but I think I have already given this above, in the list of evidence bearing upon first releases in the UK. Since this DvD seems to have been of some interest, I'm giving the link again with a bit more detail. The link: Les Enfants Du Siecle [2000] , from amazon.co.uk. Details from that link:

• Title: Les Enfants Du Siecle
• Format: PAL
• Region: Region 2 ( DVD formats.)
• Studio: 2 Entertain Video
• DVD Release Date: 17 Sep 2001
• Run Time: 108 minutes
• Main Language: French
• Sub Titles: English
• ASIN: B00005AFKT

I am not sure; but is this the DVD you guys were looking for? It's the same link I gave above, along with the details of the original UK showings as part of a Martell French Film Tour, and details of the first UK cinematic run. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the film was only subject to a limited release under the French title (due to the fact that it is unavailable from Amazon). That is one of the reasons that this film is better known under its English title, because of the availability of the Region 1 release. Reginmund 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please indent your comments? It really helps for people following along to stick to the normal conventions. I have taken the liberty of adding an indent to the comment just above. I am not disputing that the English title may be better known now, nor am I disputing that the original releases are not now as easily available as more recent releases. They have the advantage for English speakers of being in their own language, and of course they are likely to displace the original releases in retail outlets. I'm simply establishing that all the original releases in the UK were all under the French title. This includes the premiere, the first cinematic run, and the first UK DvD release. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But is the way of determining how it is better known? My point in the DVD release being limited in the UK ratifies that demand for the film would turn to the U.S. release, which in turn would be the better known name of the film. Reginmund 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have any real disagreement. I don't know, or much care, how it is better known. I think the title of the page is fine in English, and that this is the convention for Wikipedia. Under duress I might confess to feeling that this is a poor reflection on certain tendencies with English speakers, but that's not really pertinent. The page title is fine. There's nothing in the article about what title is "better known", nor do I think that is useful encyclopedic information. It's too subjective. Suffice to say that both titles are clearly indicated; and the English title is used to identify the page in the English wikipedia.

I have repeatedly insisted in all my edits that I am not disputing the page title. I am only addressing some confusion about the original UK release; whether it was under the French title or the English title. The answer to that is that it was originally released in the UK under its French title.

I have again taken the liberty of adding some indentation to your comment. The idea is that each response should have one additional level of indentation. In a really long exchange you might unindent again; many editors will actually note explicitly when they do this. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Renault French Film Festival deleted; replace with Martell French Film Tour

I have removed the mention of the 2000 Renault French Film Festival. In fact, this festival ran for the first time in 2006. On the other hand, it was formed by combing two older festivals; one being the Renault French Film Season, and the other being a travelling French Film Tour.[30] The Renault French Film season appears to have run in May; where the film is said to have shown for the first time in September... and I have documented above that it did show in the Martell French Film Tour in Sept 2000. Hence I suspect that the mention of the Renault festival was a mixup, and that it was actually the Martell French Film Tour that was the first UK showing. In any case, it certainly was shown in that tour; and the actual name of "Renault French Film Festival" is only used since 2006. So I have updated the list of festivals to replace Renault with Martell. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)