Talk:Chris Columbus (filmmaker)

Nickname

True or false: "Chris" is a nickname for "Christopher". 66.245.95.239 21:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes, regarding categorisation, and the desire to refer to Christopher instead of Chris, have NOT been for the better. Firstly, he is not known as an actor, he is a film-maker, a writer/director. Someone needs to change this, quickly. Secondly, as a result of calling him Christopher, users are more likely to be confused. Large numbers of other Wikipedia entries, which formerly directed here (e.g. from films Chris has made) are sending people to Christopher Columbus, the explorer. This is an unnecessary cock-up. Can we get a revert? (14 April 2006)

Infantilism?

wouldn't the refeence to infantilism qualify as unsourced potentially libellous material? Pugsworth 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree-Removed.

Screaming?

Not a mention of his insistence in portraying children screaming? Gremlins (kinda), Goonies, Home Alone 1 & 2, Harry Potter 1 & 2? What0s his obssesion behind this? Does he think it's funny?

It's not included in the article, because... well, frankly, I can't think of anything less relevant. It's hardly any kind of trademark. Also, remember to sign your post with four tildes. Legendotphoenix 11:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Success and criticism

This section seems like it's copied from a news site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.150.107 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chris PSPremiere.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Chris PSPremiere.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Christopher Joseph Columbus 01.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Christopher Joseph Columbus 01.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Columbus (filmmaker). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821052831/http://www.boxofficeprophets.com:80/bigpicture/index.cfm?bigpictureID=2174 to http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/bigpicture/index.cfm?bigpictureID=2174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Why does this article not prefer to this name with its true title? This is the title used by the author and the true title of the film which Chris Columbus should be credited for. 84.9.212.78 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement on this. Changing it to match the real title. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A recent edit changed the title back to the American title with the reasoning that Chris Columbus is American. I believe this was a reference to MOS:ENGVAR, where differences in vocabulary or spelling between American and British English (among other languages) are discussed and the prescribed policy is "a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." However, the title of a film is not the same as the difference between "elevator" and "lift", and so I don't think it applies to films. An example elsewhere would be Tom Hiddleston's article - although The Avengers (2012 film) was called Avengers Assemble in his native England, his article still calls the film by its proper name, The Avengers. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Article has been stable and fine for years. There are two official titles to this film. This article uses the American title because the subject of the article is an American. And yes, it applies to films unless you have a solid reason why it does not.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, this sounds like the opinion of one person, and I happen to have a different opinion, based on the fact that the policy says nothing about alternate film titles, but only addresses vocabulary and spelling. An alternate film title meant for marketing to an American audience is neither of those things. I also point out that other articles, such as the Tom Hiddleston example above, use the original title of the film he was in even though his home country marketed the film under another title. Geoffrey Rush's article does not use the alternate title of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, even though in his home country, it was called Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge. And so on. This article seems to be the exception, and if you disagree, we should probably just ask for community opinion on it in an RfC. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots to unpack here. I'll adress each one in order.

Wikipedia editors are all full of opinions. No one opinion is worth more or less than any other. That's why we have guidelines. These guidelines are designed to help alleviate edit warring and deal with differences in opinion. But sometimes even the guidelines are interpreted differently. That's fine. No quabble over difference of opinion.

Next, let's dismiss this myth that the Sorcerer's Stone is some sort of alternative title just for marketing to an American audience. It's not. It's an official title because the film is a co-production of both a US and a British production company. Add to the fact that the film's distribution and screen rights are owned by Warner Bros., an American Company, solidifies the fact that Sorcerer's Stone is an official title with just as much weight as it's British title. Another myth is that it's just called that in America. It's also the title of the film in India.

As far as the other articles are concerned, Tom Hiddleston and Geoffrey Rush, if you wish to change those articles to the British title, you are free to go right ahead and make those changes and argue your case on those talk pages. I'm not concerened with how those articles are presenting their information, nor was I aware that there was an alternative title to those films in Britain. That's a discussion for those articles. We are discussing this article not those. But you might want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF, before trying to use those articles as an excuse for changing this article from it's longstanding stable version.

As far as RFC is concerned, if you want to make an argument for changing how the guideline is interpreted you can go right ahead. Seems like there is nothing wrong with the current version since all of the guidelines are being folowed and WP:RETAIN seems to adhere to what we are talking about. The English Wikipedia is a shared project among many different English speaking countries with various spelling differences and variations on media titles, but we get along because we agree that American articles will use American variations and British articles will use British variations, this includes film titles. If not, why wouldn't it?--JOJ ^Hutton 21:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the "true title"/"real title". The title is even listed as "Socerer's Stone" on BFI (with "Philosopher's Stone" listed as an "alternative title"): [1]. It is also listed that way on Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes. I think it makes more sense to stick with common American English name for an American English article, especially when that is widely used in the sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Usually when a film is released, Wikipedia articles use the title of the film that the production company uses to market the film. In this case, however, there are multiple production companies from two different English speaking countries, both using different titles. In these cases, the title that is used in the home country of the subject, such as Sorcerer's Stone for Chris Columbus or Philosopher's Stone for many of the actors, is used as the preferable title. This is the best compromise that we could hope for since both titles are official and widely used in sources. In order to get along with other people from differing countries on this shared project, that's what needs to happen in order to reduce edit wars. It's worked so far. No reason to change it now.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, Jojhutton. I think your suggestion makes the most sense because there does not appear to be a single "real" title. I should have been clearer that my comment was directed at the initial two editors who commented. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

False dichotomy. It is both an alternative and "official" title but make no mistake there is only one canonical title. Reading your argument I get the impression you are ignorant of why there are two titles (spoiler: it is very stupid). They are clearly not equal when all factors are considered. Regardless I don't care that it is being used on this page. Mr Minderbinder (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Columbus (filmmaker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JimKaatFan (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No problems with conciseness or spelling. Some minor issues in the lead with grammar and clarity.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the lead, the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph needs work, as it's a bit confusing and needs a grammar tweak; the two problems are related. In the first sentence of the lead, the claim is made that Columbus is "best known for his family and sentimental films", the "family" part of it is not in the body at all, and the "sentimental" part of it is sourced to two articles with the briefest of mentions of "sentimentality". It seems to me that that is too trivial to be mentioned in the first sentence of a lead, given the weak sourcing. It's fine in the body. The Harry Potter films are mentioned as "His greatest commercial successes", but I see no sourcing for this either, and there's problems with this opinion as well, since what does "greatest commercial successes" mean, really? It's unclear and could be reworded. The lead should not contain statements this ambiguous. The lead mentions 15 of the 21 total films he's been involved in - see "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article" in MOS:INTRO. It could be tightened up quite a bit. @JimKaatFan: Thank you for reviewing this article. I agree there were some issues with wording. I've tightened the lead up a bit, so hopefully it's better now! L150 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, the new lead meets all criteria, well done. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	List of references is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All information is referenced to verifiable, reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The aforementioned lead contains what could be construed as grey-area original research; already explained above. Update: lead was adjusted and contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I used the Earwig tool and found no copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars going on that I can see.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	This all looks good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The picture of Columbus at Comic Con 2012 could be cropped to just include the two on the right. #1, you'd actually be able to see him , and #2 the emcee isn't relevant, but Ned Vizzini is, and could be briefly ID'd in the caption as his co-author on the House of Secrets book series. I've cropped the image on this article using some CSS (which is easier, hope that's okay). Vizzini as co-author is mentioned in the body already, but happy to add it to the caption if it's clearer. L150 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Vast improvement, well done again. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	It's very close; a few fixes to the minor problems should do it. Update: with minor fixes implemented, I believe all criteria are met. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I have removed an unsourced section per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Please note that Wikipedia cannot contain unsourced information, particularly in biographies of living persons. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)