Talk:La Reine Margot (1994 film)

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: French / War

	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 French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

untitled[edit]

Erm... why has someone listed this as an "erotic film"?!? The term surely applies to a genre and not to any movie that just happens to have quite a bit of sex in it. By the same logic you could classify Margot as a splatter film since there's lots of brutal bloodshed. It's not correct, I'm changing it and also editing the shaky English in various parts of the article.

Anyway, great movie or what? --Snowgrouse 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Australian DVD version states it is 138 minutes long on the DVD. It Doesn't feature the close up footage of La Moles severed head on Isabelle Adjani's Lap when she is in the carriage at the end of the film, something which I remembered at the cinema. Is this the same with the 145 minute versions? Also, I thought I could remember the St Bartholemews Massacre a lot longer when I saw the film in the Cinemas in Australia. Where can I get a cpy of the full 163 minute French version?

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen Margot DVD .jpg[edit]

Image:Queen Margot DVD .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Reine margot1.jpg[edit]

Image:Reine margot1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

This was moved to “Queen Margot” earlier this year. There was no explanation for this, and no discussion here.
I have moved it back to "La Reine Margot" because:

"La Reine Margot" is the original name for the film
"Queen Margot" is the name of the bowlderized American version of the film which is discussed in the “Alternative versions..." section of the article
The IMDb link goes to LRM and a search there for QM redirects to "La Reine Margot", suggesting LRM is the common name.

I trust that is acceptable to everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCF, the title of this English Wikipedia article should be Queen Margot. IMDb directs to the page Queen Margot. The English title is widely used on other film sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, Reel Views, The New York Times, All Movie, etc. Bede735 (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Queen Margot is only the US title, this is covered in the article. The convention for such cases, where the title varies between different English-speaking areas, is to just stick to the name the article was given first, in this case the UK title. In this case the US version is also a cut down version, so it's also better stick to the name used for the full movie. Smetanahue (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NCF: "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the most common title, and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterward. Note: in the following paragraphs, the phrase 'the English-speaking world' refers to countries in which the majority of the population speaks English as their first language; it thus includes the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as several smaller countries."

The focus needs to be on "an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world." Not that I don't appreciate our good friends in France who gave us this fine film, I think the guidance is clear on the issue. I recognize that occasional exceptions may apply to the guidance, but I do not see a strong case for the exception here. The "stick to the name the article was given first" argument falls short in my view. Bede735 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DVDs you link to are not UK editions, they are imports. The UK title is La Reine Margot:

Per WP:RETAIN the article should stay with the first established English variety, in this case that means British English. WP:NCF is not to be read as US = beats everything else. Smetanahue (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]