Jump to content

Talk:Beetlejuice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBeetlejuice was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 11, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Title

[edit]
The title that appears on screen is Beetle Juice -- with a space. https://i.ibb.co/bL9RWVm/Beetle-Juice-title-card.png
Same job for the character name at the start (although in the end credits he is correctly named Betelgeuse). https://i.ibb.co/719xjs2/Beetlejuice-credit.png
All of which is to say: kindly stop removing the Beetle Juice AKA from the lede. It is more than relevant. Thanks! https://www.radiotimes.com/film/rndw/beetlejuice--beetle-juice/ 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create an image, post it on the internet, and claim that it means something. Give us a reliable source from someone who was actually involved in production of the film, not some random person's image. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwDE5dMCtsc&feature=youtu.be&t=34 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not doubtful that the title card shows Beetle Juice, and there can be inconsistency between the title card and the advertising materials and what secondary sources use. While the spacing exists in the title card, the vast majority of reliable sources do not use the spacing. It looks like The Tim Burton Encyclopedia says on page 168 of a screenwriter, "He wrote the first draft of Beetlejuice (then Beetle Juice) in early 1985." I don't mind this detail being mentioned in the article body, but I'm not sure if it needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence since it is too inconsequential to do that so upfront, unlike some other alternative titles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration is the film's record at the US Copyright Office here that shows the official title to be Beetlejuice. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the on-screen title is always mentioned in the first sentence of the article (in brackets) if it differs from the WP:COMMONNAME. There are no exceptions to this. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except you have provided no evidence that it's a "common name". I will be moving it out of the lead sentence to a later place in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However commonly used, the on-screen title is always mentioned in the first sentence. No exceptions. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to link the policy for that, including the "no exceptions" part. Your saying it doesn't make it true. Otherwise I'll be removing it from the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "No exceptions" has no basis in the guidelines. I would know, I've been involved with film articles for over a decade. It would be a local consensus depending on each topic. The lead section has the most important information, and the opening sentence contains a key basic description. The on-screen title is ignored by the vast majority of reliable sources writing about the film. Even what I quoted above only mentioned it in the context of screenwriting. It doesn't matter in terms of the big picture. I'm fine with Sundayclose moving it out of the lead section and into a relevant spot in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. There is no precedent for removing the on-screen title from the lede. Many reliable sources ignoring it is of no consequence. Wikipedia consistency is. That's the relevant policy. If you could find me other articles where the on-screen title is not mentioned in the very first sentence, you might have an argument, but the onscreen title has always been mentioned at the start. I'm happy to start an RFC on this if we can't agree, but there is simply no precedent for removing this from the lede, so yes, the conversation can be had, but you'd need a pretty persuasive reason to break with Wikipedia consistency. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're waiting for you to link the relevant policy, but we don't plan to wait indefinitely. Feel free to start an RfC, but follow the requirement to word it neutrally. Otherwise it will be reworded. And note that you need to identify yourself for every comment, since you IP hop with every post. We can easily determine whether it's the same person, so don't try to deceive us. That's a great way to get an RfC rejected because of vote-stacking. Sundayclose (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do any kind of hopping, thank you. It's a dynamic IP, which doesn't alter post-to-post, but session-to-session. I have no idea why, but there you go. Thanks so much for the pleasant tone. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Using a different IP with every edit is the definition of IP hopping. I didn't state that you have any control. But if you don't identify yourself with every change of IP when commenting in an RfC, that's vote-stacking. And by the way, don't make changes regarding this issue in the article while discussion is ongoing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone been using a different IP with every edit? 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far you've edited the article with 5 different IPs that I know of. That's enough to cause a lot of misunderstanding in an RfC unless you make it clear who you are. Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that those 5 similar IPs only altered day-to-day. Not post-to-post. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By hair-splitting you've missed the point. Just make sure it's clear who you are in an RfC and everything will be copacetic. In any event, this is not the appropriate venue to quibble about those details. Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not splitting hairs. You've suggested that I may be trying to deceive you (which was why I "thanked" you for the pleasant tone), which would probably be the case if every post was a different IP. There is major difference between post-to-post and session-to-session, so thanks for admitting you were wrong. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop this and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the American Film Institute is about the most reliable of reliable film sources. https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/MovieDetails/55732 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:9018:CEE2:997:8F66 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFI is a good source depending on what it's used for, but it isn't necessarily more reliable than other sources. I'm not sure where you come up with ideas like "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable", but as always your saying it doesn't make it true. Also note that the page you link points out that "the majority of reviews and articles published at the time of the film’s release listed the title as one word." But that has already been pointed out in this discussion. It's not a compelling case for WP:COMMONNAME. Sundayclose (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have I made an RM? No. Am I arguing it's the common name? No... 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you provided a link to the policy or guideline for "no exceptions" after a couple of requests to do so? No. Have you provided any evidence for "most reliable of reliable"? No. You've expressed your opinion. Let's wait and see if there is any support for it. Sundayclose (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed no exceptions. At least, not that I have ever seen. Can you find any exceptions? Other than this title right here. And if you want to make an exception for this one... why? It is a well-known fact that the AFI is a highly reliable source. No one is going to deny that. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the fourth time, give us links to back up your bold claims of "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable", not just your opinion. Once again, your saying it doesn't make it true. Be aware that consensus is not determined by how many times you can repeat yourself. Also be aware that continuing to repeat the same thing over and over is disruptive editing. Give us the links to back up your claims or stop repeating them. Sundayclose (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: the policy of consistency between articles. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you can't find any exceptions, there are, by definition, and cunning deduction, no exceptions. So... why should this article be the one exception? The onus is on you to explain why one article should be treated differently to all similar articles (Ocean's 8, X-Men: First Class, Nymphomaniac, Scary Movie 5, Mowgli, 13 Reasons Why, Brotherhood, Life Sentence, Cube 2: Hypercube, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, M*A*S*H, etc.) 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "policy of consistency between articles". If you think there is, please link it. No one has to obey your command to "find any exception". You, on the other hand, need to back up your claims about "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable" with links to actual policies rather than policies you create in your mind. Otherwise, move on and stop being disruptive by endlessly repeating claims with no basis in policy. I'm very serious about stopping this incessant repetition. Read WP:DISRUPT, especially WP:IDHT. Accordingly, I will not pander to your disruptive editing. Thus far you have no support for your edit, either here or in Wikipedia policy. Future repetitive comments will be ignored. A reasonable period of time to establish consensus is a couple of weeks. After that time, if you don't get significant support from other editors, your edit will be removed and placed in an appropriate place later in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are no policies or guidelines that requires including on-screen titles. There is no explicit policy for consistency other than article titles being WP:CONSISTENT. Since this is related to film, there would need to be WikiProject Film WP:CONSENSUS to support this, and that does not exist. Furthermore, the examples are a mixed bag where some alternative titles are also reflected in the marketing materials, where I've seen local consensus to mention them. That's not the case for Beetlejuice. The existence of these examples do not mean they are valid; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some examples seem worthwhile, others are not. Like who cares if Ocean's 8 spelled out the number onscreen, and who cares if Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials only focused on the subtitle onscreen? There is a stronger case to make in mentioning alternative titles reflected in marketing materials, as they may be likely to be searched for, but not necessarily on a universal basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, even IMDB has "Beetle Juice" as the primary title. Weird that Wikipedians are ignoring this notable variation. I'm struggling to understand from the above discussion why you want it buried? Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, IMDb does not have it as the primary title. It says "Beetlejuice (1988)" in both the web page's title and on the page itself. I'm not sure what you're looking at. And as far as I can tell, no one is objecting to mentioning Beetle Juice in the article body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of the most important parts of the article body. A difference of a space in an early copy of the script is not important compared to other details about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the script. IMDB's policy is to use what appears on screen as their primary title, which is why it is "Beetle Juice" (two words) as the primary title there (you will only see their localized display title if you're accessing via your phone), and I have to agree with the above argument that I haven't come across a Wiki page which doesn't show this in the lead. If you did have consensus to move it from the lead (I don't see consensus) then the correct course of action would be to move it to the article body, not delete it entirely. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's about what IMDb uses as the title on it's page for the film. Give us your evidence that "IMDB's policy is to use what appears on screen as their primary title", and then explain why IMDb uses "Beetlejuice" as the title for its article as well as the content of its article. And yes, there was a consensus because there were no comments here for three weeks. You just violated that consensus by not getting a new consensus. Feel free to mention "Beetle Juice" in the body of the article, but not in the lead without a new consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're getting funny about "new consensus" because a couple of weeks elapsed. If you had consensus, your move would be to move it to the article body, not delete it, which you have once again done. Here is the evidence of IMDB's title policy, which has always been this way, and I repeat for the third time: IMDB's primary title for this film is Beetle Juice. Their display titles are localized common titles, which is why you see "Beetlejuice", but you will notice the primary title directly below the display title. Jenny Jankel (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks without discussion is quite sufficient to determine consensus. Consensus can change, so please seek a change in consensus before changing the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to say about the evidence presented above? And what policy says three weeks is enough? The discussion is ongoing. Aggressively hitting my talk page with false warnings isn't going to get you anywhere. Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear from the above that there is zero consensus to change the title on this page. There are two camps on the subject and neither are moving. @Jenny Jankel can argue that the discussion is "on-going", but you are the only voice pro change and the dissenters aren't budging. If you feel that the issue needs mediation, I'd suggest that you take this to admin as the horse is officially dead. Ckruschke (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I'm fairly sure no one was trying to change the page title, and your count is also... wrong. But thanks for your input! Jenny Jankel (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm admittedly coming late to the party, but I need some help understanding exactly what is being asked. Does someone (Jenny Jankel, Sundayclose, or the IPv6 user on Sky Broadband in the UK, perhaps) want to rename (move) the article? Rewrite the lede? I've read this Talk section and am really confused as to what—specifically—is being asked. I'll appreciate any help any of y'all care to give. Meanwhile, I'm going to get some popcorn and rewatch the movie. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, it is about whether or not to mention Beetle Juice as an alternative title in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about the title's variance before, but I shrugged it off because it's not the first work of fiction to have that type of inconsistency. If it's important enough, rather than just some trivial thing, to mention on the page, I'm okay with that. Film Bio Legacy (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Character name spelling

[edit]

I realize I'm reopening a can of worms, but can we take another swing at achieving consensus for how this article should spell the character name? Going to start this out as a plain old discussion, but can turn it into an RfC if there isn't enough engagement or if consensus remains elusive...

Note that I'm not questioning how to spell the movie title, which seems to be a relatively settled question, just how to refer to the character. I see there are claims on this page that consensus has been reached (both for "Beetlejuice" and for "Betelgeuse", which is a good sign consensus probably has not been reached), but it seems pretty clear from a review of past discussions that it has not been. Furthermore, the article currently uses the "Beetlejuice" spelling for the character within the lead and plot sections, "Betelgeuse" in the cast section, and a mix of both in the production section, making it confusing to read.

From a review of past discussions, it seems that this all stems from inconsistency within the film itself, so it's understandable that there's not a clear answer. To try to summarize:

To simplify discussion, let's call Option A support for using "Beetlejuice" throughout when referring specifically to the character, and Option B support for using "Betelgeuse".

Pinging editors involved in past discussions on this topic, with apologies for those of you who discussed this 15 years ago and don't care anymore. I've skipped those who haven't edited in years and years. @Brideshead, GastonRabbit, Wildroot, MikeWazowski, Serendipodous, Allixpeeke, Ckruschke, and Adxm: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B ("Betelgeuse") because that is the spelling used within the film, and that spelling is somewhat of a plot point itself (given the characters have trouble pronouncing it, which they likely would not if it was spelled "Beetlejuice"). I'm also swayed by the fact that it's the spelling favored by Burton himself in his autobiography. There is no clear WP:COMMONNAME among the sources used in this article — by numbers alone, "Beetlejuice" wins out 12–6, but excluding some of the lower-quality or UGC sources leaves it roughly even. I would also support adding a footnote explaining the spelling discrepancies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B If "Betelgeuse" is the name given in the film and by the credits then, honestly, I don't understand why this discussion is happening. This is the factually correct spelling of the name. This isn't a WP:COMMONNAME issue because we are not discussing the name of the article, so the amount of coverage the factually inaccurate spelling gets is irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B ("Betelgeuse"): I concur with the above and support adding a footnote, perhaps as early as the introductory paragraph: "starring [...] Michael Keaton as the title character" (emphasis mine). Beaudine Wilson (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of Consensus: I'm sorry and I'm probably going back on what I've said in the past, but when the movie and all the literature on the movie is titled Bettlejuice and other references to the character within and without of the movie spell it Betelgeuse, even the source material has no consensus with itself so I'm not sure how Wikipedia can sort it out when its unsortable. Yes that option is hard to take and keeping the page the mess that it is is stupid, but I'm not sure how we can make a decision when even Burton doesn't refer to the movie with its given title spelling - he's part of the problem. Ckruschke (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
    We can reach a consensus on how to treat it within the article(s) even if the source material is inconsistent. That doesn't mean we're deciding what the One True Spelling is, we're just picking an option to stick to for our own internal consistency. I've suggested including a footnote on the spelling inconsistencies as well, to directly note in the article that there is some variation in how the name is spelled. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the change given the general consensus here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand someone already broke it. Beaudine Wilson (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Following?

[edit]

Should we add a “cult following” status to Beetlejuice? It seems to have acclaimed one over the years, in my opinion. Meghan Norry (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please don't. People spam the claim "cult following" all over Wikipedia to the point that it is almost meaningless (and then low quality sites like Screenrant claim a film has a cult following the circle of Wikipedia continues). Editors should first make sure there is enough of a "cult following" or "cult status" to write a properly referenced Legacy section before you go giving such claims WP:UNDUE emphasis by adding them to the lead section. -- 109.77.197.194 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Beetlejuice

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2008 GA no longer up to standard. Lots of unsourced content (almost entire writing section) and the article also seems incomplete (i.e. a complete lack of the film's influence and legacy) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beetlejuice&oldid=1286859126"