Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translation convention

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that sufficient sources have been added to show notability DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation convention

A widely used film style. Surely some highfalutin film critic has written on this subject at length and given it a fancy name. But the author of the article seems to think references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As described, a translation converntion is an often used device in film and literature. The non-RS site TV Tropes offers some information and context that could lead to reliable sources dicussing this. In reading the article, I realize just how widespread a convention this is and remember the Stargate (film) film NOT using it, and how the television series and spinoffs began using it as an unexplained "given" that, except in some few rare cases, eveyone else in the universe spoke American English. Actor David Hewlett does not here speak toward the identified inconsistancy. Contrarily, a film like Apocolypto uses native-sounding dialog and then uses subtitles of whatever language is the film audience. This device of translation convention must certainly have gotten enough coverage to show suitable notability, and I agree with nominator that it may be known under a different name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Perhaps: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  - Ah... [1][2]
Delete. This may be a valid topic, but this article is WP:OR and WP:ESSAY. The searches MichaelQSchmidt suggest indicate that this conceit is well known, but there's no indication that it's a recognized subject of film study. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My additional "Find sources" do not bind editors, as they were offered in trying to determine what might be the better title for this "valid topic" and to encourage we extend our searches beyond a problematic title. We do not need any topic to itself be a recognized subject of film study just so long as we can determine the topic of various translation conventions are being discussed (under whatever title) in enough reliable sources so as to determine as notable. Again... still working. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per related CFD without prejudice to RS. However, Ephraim Katz's Film Encyclopedia has an entry for "foreign version" (WP's international version is similar but only about Japanese videogames), mentioning Anna Christie (1930 film)'s relation to this topic. But I don't have an urge for article creation right now, nor using said creation as a coatrack for this OR. Someone will write enough about it in RS someday. JJB 06:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Still delete with no diss to Uncle G. This AFD is now a better article on the topic than the article itself. I would love to see Uncle G's article created but until that happens there is hardly anything to keep about the current article, which seems like a different animal altogether. If kept, it might need more readable text in tags than there is in the current article. Somewhere in WP there are tags for "move to uncertain location", and "expand from this recommended source" (which would link to this AFD page of course). JJB 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep References are unnecessary for statements of the obvious. If editors wish to develop the article, they will not have difficulty finding sources from The speech of the "barbarians" in ancient Greek literature to Translation goes to the Movies and Cinema Babel. Our editing policy is to improve not to delete. Warden (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that much work is involved, MichaelQSchmidt. Two minutes' work found Kozloff 2000 and Bleichenbacher 2008 was a few minutes after that. The main problem is that the subject is not named with this title, not that this subject has never been discussed by scholars. Miller 2010, p. 140–141 gives several nonce titles used by one or two film critics and scholars, such as Hunt for Red October effect and intratextual standardization, but multilingualism in film seems to be one that is used across sources and by multiple people. A sub-topic (for a section in the article) is, as discussed by Lippi-Green 1997, Bleichenbacher 2008, and others, is to what extent this is, or promotes, linguicism in film.
But the major topic is of course the language contact and the classification of the ways in which film-makers approach multilingual dialogues, from presence to elimination. There's actually quite a lot to write on this subject, as can be seen from the length of Bleichenbacher's treatment of it if nothing else. It's a shame therefore that this article is badly written and is pretty much another case of cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, with a name taken from a non-expert-written wiki (TVTropes) whose authors are unidentifiable and the content simply plucked out of thin air, rather than both the name and the content following from what expert-written sources by identifiable scholars say. The latter approach would never have brought this to AFD. The former approach has, with an article that really gives no hint at all as to what actual scholarship says on this topic and doesn't actually increase a reader's knowledge from reading it.
Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kozloff, Sarah (2000). "Structural and Stylilstic Variables". Overhearing Film Dialogue. University of California Press. pp. 80–83. ISBN 9780520221383.
- Bleichenbacher, Lukas (2008). Multilingualism in the Movies: Hollywood characters and their language choices. Tübingen: Francke Verlag. ISBN 9783772082702.
- Lippi-Green, R. (1997). "Teaching children how to discriminate: What we learn from the Big Bad Wolf" (PDF). In Lippi-Green, R. (ed.). English with an Accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. pp. 79–103.
- Miller, Joshua L. (2010). "American Languages". In Rowe, John Carlos (ed.). A Concise Companion to American Studies. Blackwell Companions in Cultural Studies. Vol. 30. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781405109246.
If the topic is valid and sourcable as shown, what do we title the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd personally go for the third of the redlinks that I gave, multilingualism in film (with of course the obvious multilinguialism in movies redirect), simply because that was the name most commonly used in what I read. Hunt for Red October effect and so forth were just nonces. There are other names in the literature that at the very least should be redirects: polyglot cinema, multilingual film, and polyglot film. (I've given you a lot of names to search for ⇗, haven't I?)
  None of which (apart from multilingual film which has an ambiguous usage) should be confused with the multiple language version films of the early 20th century. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. I have no idea if there's a better name for this story device. Please note it should not be exclusive to film. The Steve 10:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an overarching subject of multilingualism. Things like multilingalism in literature probably shouldn't be incorporated into this subject, though. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and Uncle G's far more in-depth research showing this valid topic (by whatever name) as being discussed in multiple secondary sources. Thanks Unc. Deciding a better title does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Research has saved the article, establishing it's a notable topic under some name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.