This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American 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 This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Romance Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Shouldn't this be "Cwazy, Stupid, Wuv" ?131.247.83.135 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rating is not noted anywhere. This movie HAS to have been rated PG-13 for the following reasons:

1) The word "shit" was used 17 different times by 5 different characters

2) The word "fuck" was used once

3) One of the characters was shown giving the middle finger- the universal sign of "fuck you"

4) The son was shown under the covers, with the idea of masturbation going on

5) A sex scene was shown, however, very brief as it was, the idea of sex between two people were shown

6) Partial nudity was shown as the idea of a totally stark naked man, even though only his butt was fully seen

7) The word "asshole" was used 9 times by 3 different characters

With all the noted reasons, the movie was pretty obviously a PG-13 rated movie. PLEASE note it in the article. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.74 (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but why should the Motion Picture Association of America's film rating system be noted in the Wikipedia article of a film? I think that the Ontario Film Review Board's rating should be noted instead, which lists it as PG rather than PG-13. Just sayin 99.237.6.129 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMRATING. Rating is not notable unless there is significant coverage. -- 109.79.161.49 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the poster version is the alternative stylisation and the on-screen version is the official stylisation.  Thus, crazy, stupid, love. is the title.  allixpeeke (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any reference where the title is stylised as "Crazy Stupid Love"

In the poster it is stylised as approx:

CRAZY
STUPID
LOVE GregKaye 17:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think considering line breaks a stylization is way too much. Would we note this for, say, Avengers: Age of Ultron? The Bridge on the River Kwai? Beautiful Creatures? --BDD (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BDD Fair enough. Perhaps an alternative would be to simply remove the note on stylisation or to present that its stylised as "CRAZY STUPID LOVE" but I don't know if this is really called for as it only occurs in the poster. GregKaye 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an intriguing mystery. How did a film with one name get changed, seemingly universally in reviews, awards (I haven't looked at all the award nominations), and other venues, to a different common name? Interesting. A very good film, if you haven't seen it. And GregKaye, thanks for the compliment above. Or maybe "thanks alot!", because I must now live up to it (sigh.?,!_!). Randy Kryn 19:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have gone the whole other direction and instead of the case above where someone was suggesting the title be written without any punctuation at all, these edits have been insisting that it be written as "Crazy, Stupid, Love." including a period. In some cases such as the External links this merely seems pointless, but it is very weird to force it mid-sentence.[1]

1. No one seems to have established what exactly the official title is actually supposed to be
2. If the official title does or does not include punctuation it is not clear if this article should necessarily follow that

I welcome editors to show 1 and discuss 2, but until then I see no reason not to restore the status quo. I think it is very strange to insist on a period only 3 words into a sentence[2] and that if that really is necessary it should be clearly explained beforehand. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor is again trying to force this formatting, without any discussion, and I have again reverted it.[3] See the 2 questions above. -- 109.78.193.228 (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A title's punctuation is necessary in its first mention in the article, just like at Emma (2020 film) and Everybody Wants Some!! (film) and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (film) and all other similarly punctuated titles. 90.249.244.206 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep making this same assertion without any discussion. You have not at any point proved the title is actually what you claim it is (1) and you have not shown that it is necessary to follow that stylization (2). What Wikipedia project guidelines are you using to support your position? The film Seven (1995 film) was stylized as Se7en but Wikipedia ignores that. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Naming_conventions

You point to three articles as examples, 2 of which are only Start class and one of which is C, but none of those articles are Good Article or Featured Article quality so it amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also you should take a closer look at the example of "Emma." because there is a proper source and the director says the period was very much intentional, answering the question (1) that has not been clearly answered here. Unlike those examples this film does not include any punctuation on the poster at all.

It is still very weird to include a period mid sentence. (See Question 2)

If you had made the basic effort to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide edit summaries, or made an effort to discuss this, we might have been able to work this out, but you have repeatedly failed on both counts. At the very least you need to prove that the title is what you claim it is, using reliable sources. (See Question 1)

You can always ask for a neutral 3rd opinion, see WP:3RD. -- 109.78.193.228 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just me, User:Materialscientist also recently reverted the change[4] as did many others before I started watching this page. -- 109.78.193.228 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also wasn't just me. A quick look at the history shows several editors have edited either way. Punctuation is not stylization. The policy to follow is WP:CONSISTENT. Which other punctuated film titles remove the punctuation from the first mention simply because a couple of editors don't like how it looks/reads? The answer is none. There are many reliable sources confirming the period in the title. Why else do you think all the film sites (imdb, rotten tomatoes, letterboxd, etc.) include the period? I can link you to many sources if that's what you want, but that's unnecessary since it's the title used in the billing block of the official poster which denotes the official title. The onscreen title also has the period.

You'll see I also added a note after the period to explain that the period is supposed to be there, so no readers will think it's an error (a mistake made by some of the editors who have edited this article previously). This is the same for all film articles whose title ends with a period. 90.249.244.206 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not all of the anon editors trying to force this change are the same person as you but the failure to provide edit summaries or discuss this before now shows a lack of good faith and does not inspire confidence. (I find it interesting that the previous discussion about the title was so very different and didn't want to other way with none of the punctuation).

You still have not established (1) using reliable sources that the official title is actually what you claim it is. The footnote was was your unsourced opinion The production notes would be a good source, or as in the case of "Emma." an interview with the filmmakers. When you have done that then you can talk about WP:CONSISTENT. I don't believe the people behind "Untitled Marital Crisis Comedy" put all that much thought into the title, but that's my opinion, it is not supposed to be about our opinions so show some better sources already. -- 109.77.209.137 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again at WP:OFFICIALNAME WP:COMMONNAME WP:MOSFILM and more sources including the film itself, I would no longer object to the intro of the article including a note the film was stylized as "crazy, stupid, love." in lowercase and including the period (not oppose but I will not be adding it to the article either) and so long as it is only mentioned once. I still very much object to page moves, or attempts to force the formatting anywhere else in the article (for example the External links section). -- 109.78.210.212 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:FILMLEAD, the purpose of the intro is to summarize the article, which part of why I do not like this messing with the intro, and would prefer to have a proper explanation of the title in the Production section, but we don't seem to have any good quality sources to explain what the filmmakers (or the marketing people who made the poster) were thinking. Or to put it another way, it does not appear to be notable. -- 109.78.210.212 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official title, as it's the title used in the billing block. Additionally, it's the the on-screen title, and the title used by numerous reliable sources. There's no question about notability. 90.249.244.206 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say "It's the official title" I don't think you've adequately shown that using reliable sources. Even if you had that still conflicts with the title as shown on the poster. The alleged official title isn't used consistently, and Wikipedia is not necessary limited to the official title anyway (WP:COMMONNAME).

You say "it's the the on-screen title" another editor was helpful enough to provide a link to make that clearer, (and eventually I did check the film itself too) and to point out more specifically the onscreen title was stylize as "crazy, stupid, love." It would have shown good faith if you'd made a bit more effort like that other commenter did, but because of that I do accept think it is reasonable (though pointless) to mention that stylization once, if you insist. (This still falls far below "Emma." where the filmmaker actually made an effort to justify their punctuation.) -- 109.76.147.128 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the long discussion above and previous consensus an editor has boldly asserted that the film title must be changed throughout the article, each and every single time it is used.[5] This was a significant change without any consensus. (There was no consensus for page move either.) It does not seem unreasonable to note this stylized use of punctuation in the title once, but to do so each and every time it appears throughout the article seems unnecessary. Perhaps opinions have changed and a different consensus can be established but in light of previous discussions I do not think it is unreasonable to restore the WP:STATUSQUO until a new consensus is established. -- 109.77.193.159 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also that edit[6] was particularly aggressive, forcing changes of the film title even within quoted text and reference titles (which goes to back to showing ordinary and WP:COMMONNAME usage of the title omitted the period). -- 109.77.193.159 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor 90.249.244.206 continues to change the page without even an edit summary forcing what he thinks is the correct film title.[8] This is despite the above discussions about the film name and WP:COMMONNAME. -- 109.79.171.78 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article credits Tipton under their deadname Analiegh and includes a footnote mentioning how they changed their name. The source code includes a note saying that they should be credited on the article as Analiegh per infobox guidelines, but Elliot Page is credited under that name even for films released before his transition. Should they not be credited as Lio? Wasabi OS (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should follow MOS:GID and credit as Lio with a footnote or parenthetical. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information relevant this film article is the information that appeared in the film credits. That this person changed their name after this film is of very little relevance to this encyclopedia article about this film. It is not clear that the guidelines for biographical articles somehow take precedence over the guidelines for film articles. See Template:Infobox_film/doc#Credits – "credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made". See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Cast All names should be referred to as credited. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM goes on to say "or by common name supported by a reliable source", which Lio is. MOS:BIO applies not just to biographical articles but also "biographical information in other articles" and the relevant part of MOS:GID is explicitly about treatment outside of the main bio article. Use of Lio's name with their notable, credited deadname in a footnote or parenthetical is consistent with both guidelines, while front-ending the deadname is not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"common name supported by a reliable source" WP:COMMONNAME can be established, yes. So please provide sources to establish that the new name is commonly used (not merely the already included reference that simply says a new name exists). Tipton was notable under the name Annaleigh, it is not clear to me that Tipton has done much since and that their new name has become common. MOS:GID does not support excluding the name under which a person was actually notable. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME, the article title policy, is a red herring here. Lio's name is commonly used by reliable sources. They're plentiful enough on an easy search that pasting urls here would be wasted effort. And we're not "excluding" Lio's deadname. It's present in a footnote, as it should be. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic, so easy you aren't even going to bother. Shame on you.

Using the new name does nothing to improve this article or serve readers, but the policies seem to allow you to do it anyway. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of articles saying they changed their name, but most still have explain they used to go by the name Annaleigh, so unlike Elliot Page I do not see that common name has been established yet. You are doing readers no favors and making a worse encyclopedia article by using an unncommon name. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new name almost always comes with the explanation of the old name, it is not yet established as a common name. Editors have asserted but never actually shown their case. This is akin to insisting on writing "Ye" instead of Kanye West, or Diddy instead of Sean Combs. Celebrities change their names, it does not server ordinary readers of an encyclopedia to rewrite the past every time they do and WP:FILMCAST specifically says to credit people using the name at the time. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

109.77.193.159, you can't just revert an edit solely on the grounds of BRD, with no other legitimate reason. I have explained the reasoning behind my edit; what policy-based rationale do you have? Your previous assertion that there was consensus on this talk page is false; there was only consensus for what the article should be titled, which again has no bearing on the article's content itself. As for modifying reference titles, that was a mistake done by accident, for which I apologize. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IN. Please see #Film title yet agian. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus in that discussion, and it doesn't seem like anyone presented the evidence I did. One of the comments say that it's not clear which is the official title, which I have debunked — see the billing block, the copyright filing, the MPAA certificate, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that it had consensus, but that the IP did not revert solely on the grounds of BRD and had explained their reasoning in an existing section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I did not realize that subsection was newly created and alluding to my edit (I am not watching this page). Apologies for the confusion. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if the IP had pinged me rather than go on about an unnamed "editor". InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the many previous discussions, this was not a simple uncontentious change. I cannot take an edit that modified quoted text on good faith. Modifying the reference titles suggests the edit was not made carefully. I restored the WP: STATUS QUO.
Your arguments about official name seem reasonable -- although I'm not sure a slavish adherence to punctuation does anything to benefit ordinary readers of this encyclopaedia -- I will abide by consensus if other editors support the proposed change. -- 109.77.193.159 (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about not assuming good faith is troubling; editors are expected to assume good faith unless it is clear that an edit was intended to disrupt or vandalize, i.e. it was done with malicious intent. This is clearly not the case here, and I'm disturbed that you think so.

If there is no rationale to not use the correct title other than that "it was done without consensus" and "it's unnecessary" (the latter of which is an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT argument), then I do not see a reason not to do so. To reiterate, WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME only govern article titles. Unless the formal title of a subject is overly long or vastly different than the common name, there is no reason not to use the actual title in the article body. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith, and I also check the contents of the diff. Once is mistake doing it twice is deliberate. I am very glad that editing of quoted text was not malicious, just careless. This was a contentious change, and based on the multiple past discussions, I believe it needs consensus. Stop trying to make this about me, I'm an anonymous editor, my not quoting exactly the right obscure Wikipedia rule is beside the point. If you really do think including a period mid sentence is not bad writing, and genuinely think it makes this a better encyclopedia article, then stand by the merits of your arguments and get at least some local consensus before changing the status quo. Call in WP:3RD and get this over with quick or ask WP:FILM. -- 109.77.193.159 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Wikipedia works through consensus. But you should be aware that consensus is achieved through editing 90% of the time; my edit was not challenged for nearly a full month, indicating that there is at least some consensus for it. With that being said, I will of course wait to see if others chime in in order to obtain a more accurate consensus. I've also scanned the previous discussion, and I saw no firm consensus for either styling, but I should note that the two key points raised in the discussion were both false: COMMONNAME does not affect prose, and per the evidence I've presented, we know for certain that the official title has a period, not merely a stylization.

P.S. If the people here (not referring to anyone in particular) are so ticked off about the one period here, y'all must be incensed with Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film) — there's a period, comma, and a question mark! InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is also awful, but again reviewers like trade journal Variety do not repeat the period over and over again.[9]

Now that we are clear that modifying quoted text and reference titles is unnecessary, what specific change are you actually proposing anyway? Including the pedantic period once to show the "official name." is not unreasonable, spamming it throughout the article is plain bad punctuation, and how real publications actually use the title of this film already shows it. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITCON is not "qui tacet consentire videtur" or "he who is silent is understood to consent". It refers to normal editing, not changes that have already been disputed before. This is not a normal simple case that guideline refers to, your change was reverted, and you were asked to discuss. WP:BOLD editing does encourage you to go for it, but cautious editing might have taken note that this change was contentious and discussed on multiple previous occasions. Prior discussion is not required but knowing the change was contentious, floating the idea on the talk page first would have given you the chance to make it clearer in advance exactly why you thought the change was different this time. In any case, I have brought the question to WP:FILM. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Punctuation_in_titles,_period. I remain unconvinced that this overpunctuation is a good idea, and I feel bad for anyone trying to read articles like Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. (film) using a screen reader. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone restores the dot version, can they at least address the IP's reasonable concerns about changes to quotes and source titles? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia Project film. User:InfiniteNexus is discussing in good faith and I am confident that if necessary he will propose a reasonable new edit rather than reapplying the same old broken edit.

User:Legobro99 is not editing in good faith, and has hounded me to this article because he is unwilling to discuss his changes on a different article (where edit warring has rewarded him by getting the page locked to his preferred version). Legobro99 has been editing disruptively, his edits to this article are entirely in bad faith, and he even called for increased protection on this page so that he could force his changes. He has been temporarily blocked from editing this page for 48 hours as a result.[10] I don't want to escalate this but if he edits this article again after the 48 block expire then he's clearly leaving me with no choice but to take it to the admins. I would much prefer to try to make a better encyclopedia and focus on editing articles to better serve the readers. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Including full official title once with period[11] (but not everywhere throughout the article) does seem to be within the current guidelines and that's where the discussion ended up. It took some discussion and more time but this matter seem to have been resolved. I hope editors can discuss and try to gain consensus before making any further title changes. -- 109.79.167.231 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is clear "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose".

Unfortunately an editor has been making changes without following the WP:SIMPLE rules and only belatedly included an edit summary arguing their opinion that the documentation of Template:Infobox film somehow takes precedence over WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

The poster top billing contains six names. It is entirely reasonable to include these names in the Infobox. The small print in the billing block includes seven names.

The documentation Template:Infobox film says "In general, use the billing block" but it also says it is acceptable to use the use the top-billed actors.

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says less is more, this larger purpose of making a more useful encyclopedia should take precedence over the "in general" documentation of template. Stop and think about it for a moment, is making a better encyclopedia more important or is following template documentation strictly to the letter ever single time more important? (The template documentation was written at a time when people were adding excessive minor cast to the Infobox, it was intended help agree on upper limits, it doesn't take precedence over WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.) -- 109.79.168.48 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first off I understand the WP:SIMPLE policy and to infer that I don't is both incorrect and something I actually resent having been here.....counts....nineteen years. The VAST majority of film infoboxes include everyone who is in the poster block for the simple reason that if the producers think that the actor is known enough and/or the character is important enough then they go in the infobox. There are plenty of examples where actors who are dominant in the film don't appear in the block or poster in general and therefore aren't in the infobox (Gene Hackman in The Firm, Glenn Close in Air Force One spring to mind) and some infoboxes that are very top heavy with virtually the entire case (Expendables 3). All I suggest is that if we take this one actor out due to following WP:SIMPLE then we will have to go through every film that has top actors on the poster and other actors in the block. That's just bad management. Quentin X (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]