Talk:Loreak

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 21 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning not moved. Clearly there is not a consensus to rename this article at the moment, and arguably there is a consensus against doing so but that's splitting hairs as the result is the same. Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Loreak → Flowers (film) – WP:UE, WP:NCF. Remember we are looking for the title most used in the English-speaking world, and the first and only distributor in the English-speaking world is using the title Flowers.[1] Likewise the official list of Oscar submissions,[2] and various film festivals it's played at.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Film Fan 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oppose Loreak is the correct title that's being used both in Spain and outside, with "Flowers" being a translation rather than the title of the film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's not true. I have updated the evidence above. Film Fan 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is true, if you knew what you were taking about. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay. But you're wrong. Film Fan 23:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Relisting comment - looking for insight from other editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: Google searches for strings that would be found where the film is discussed in English, such as "by Jon Garaño and Jose Mari Goenaga", yield significantly more results when Loreak is included in the string (outside the quotes) than when Flowers is, even though nearly every English-language discussion of the film would naturally be expected to tell readers the meaning of the title. If Flowers really were the title most-used in the English-speaking world, Loreak would show up a distant second in search results. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Your logic doesn't quite hold up, GrammarFascist. The vast majority of sources that use the title Flowers also mention the original title Loreak. Any journalist will confirm that's the norm for foreign works of art. Also, as mentioned in the OP, this film is actually in theaters right now, officially titled Flowers. And here is the official poster. Pre-distribution sources are irrelevant when a film actually gets theatrical distribution and finds an audience, so one should be looking at the more recent sources. I ask that you reconsider your vote. I should add that Lugnuts is simply being a contrarian for personal reasons. Cheers. Film Fan 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  - If indeed my logic doesn't hold up, you've failed to point out where it failed. Obviously sources where both titles are mentioned will show up in searches for both [search string]+flowers and [search string]+loreak, so if there are significantly more results for one search than the other (and there are, and it's the +loreak searches), that clearly indicates that there are more English-language sources using that title and leaving the other out. As for the poster, I guess I could be hallucinating but I see both titles on it. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 00:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
    - To clarify that thinly veiled personal attack from FF, note that he has a long history of disruptive page moves, as his lengthy block log will confirm. Most of his recent attempts at page moves have failed spectacularly. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
      - Nope, nope and nope to the lies. Film Fan 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
        Yes. Wrong once again. And here are just a few failed pages moves - One and two. I'll dig out more if you like. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
        What relevance does a block log have to do with anything? Or indeed my pages moves - the vast, vast majority of which are successful and always have been. Grow up. Film Fan 10:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It shows your long history of disruption when it comes to this issue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

- It doesn't. It's just a bitter attitude that adds absolutely zilch to the conversation. Film Fan 11:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm pinging Baskesc to this conversation, simply because they're the only other major contributor to the article; I have no idea what their opinion on the move will be, so I don't think this counts as canvassing. @Film Fan and Lugnuts: All either of you are doing with your personal attacks is making me inclined to discount everything you have to say, despite my best efforts to AGF. Please focus on the merits of your arguments, not on each other's perceived failings. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no strong opinion about the matter. Baskesc (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd be grateful if you weighed up the evidence and voted either way, Baskesc. Film Fan 18:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loreak. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic