Talk:Traffic (2000 film)

Good article

Traffic (2000 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 5, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
February 19, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

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

WikiProject icon Film : American

WikiProject icon 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

Taskforce icon This article is supported by the American cinema task force .

Note icon This article has an archived peer review.

WikiProject icon Crime and Criminal Biography : Organized crime Low‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taskforce icon This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

WikiProject icon California Low‐importance

WikiProject icon 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.

WikiProject icon Tijuana (inactive)

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tijuana, a project which is currently considered to be inactive .TijuanaWikipedia:WikiProject TijuanaTemplate:WikiProject TijuanaTijuana

WikiProject icon United States : Ohio Low‐importance

WikiProject icon 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.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taskforce icon This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

2000 movie instead of movie?

[edit ]

1- Why did this get moved to {2000 movie} instead of just {movie)?

2- Why 2000 when even in the article it says it's a 1999 movie?

-- Zoe

I don't know, unless # Trafic (1971) or # Tráfico (1998) had something to do with it--but they're not in English, so....? --KQ

This article should be disambiguated with the phrase "(film)". —Lowellian (reply) 17:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Weaselly paragraph

[edit ]

Removed this paragraph as weaselly:

Rumour has it that George W. Bush sat down with his drug czar and told him to watch Traffic, saying, this is what the drug situation is like in America.

Encyclopedia articles should have a bit firmer foundation than rumor. 209.149.235.254 20:47, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...the film avoids sanctimony and was responsible for renewed discussion of drug issues in the United States.

While I mostly agree, isn't this a bit fanboy-ish (non-NPOV)? Bananafish 05:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

Cleanup

[edit ]

The article is lean on main content. We should kill the trivia section an its non-encyclopedic list and integrate it into prose for the main article. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I incorporated the trivia section into the main article. It's a little (or more than a little) disjointed, and could stand to be filled in with other information, especially the plot section. A brief plot summary would be helpful. Ckessler 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm currently working on the Development and Reception sections and will be beefing them up considerably over the next few days.--J.D. (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Academy Award for Best Picture

[edit ]

This article says Traffic was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, but didn't win. Yet on the following link also in Wikipedia - specifically the Academy Award Page, Traffic won the Academy Award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Directing

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicelth (talk • contribs) 10:47, 28 January 2007

The Academy Award for Directing is not the same as the Best Picture Award. Cop 633 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Plot Analysis

[edit ]

I added the ploy analysis and I hope others will continue to contribute to it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmilloy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 February 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Traffic poster.JPG

[edit ]

Image:Traffic poster.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) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Headlines

[edit ]

--articles/interviews, etc. to use to improve this article.--J.D. (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Production country

[edit ]

Country. In other articles about the movie (other languages) there is also Germany listed as Productioncountry, only in the English wiki it isn't? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.251.120 (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Thats correct. The German Splendid Medien (http://www.splendid-medien.de/english/index_c.html) was main producer: http://www.splendid-medien.de/img/upload/unternehmensgeschichte_en.pdf 84.63.157.170 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Identities of winners of Oscars and other awards

[edit ]

Hi, While it's clear that Soderbergh is the director, and thus recipient of that award, the article does not mention who the winners of the Best Supporting Actor or Best Editing Awards are. Could someone add this explicitly please? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

I've added in the Oscar winners at least. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [reply ]

Requested move

[edit ]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved JaGa ^talk 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Traffic (film) → Traffic (2000 film) — There's a disambiguation from the 2011 film of the same name. This film cannot be considered a primary topic as the 2011 film has also got its own media importance and is regarded as a landmark film. Page view statistics may be in favour of this film but it need not be considered as the 2011 film is from a relatively unknown film industry. --Arfaz (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd be reluctant to make a move too soon. The 2011 film has just been released, the Soderbergh film has by contrast stayed notable and discussed ten years after its release. Are you suggesting that the 2011 film become the primary topic? A proviso at the very beginning of the article is already a heavy accommodation towards it.--Ktlynch (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't say that 2011 film is the primary topic. I suggested a disambiguation page to be created. --Arfaz (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose - in terms of films titled Traffic, the 2000 one is the primary topic, even many years after it's initial release. It doesn't really make any sense to argue that the 2011 film is of equal stature but "from a relatively unknown film industry". If it's relatively unknown than it's not a candidate for primary topic. I'm not questioning notability here, just saying the 2000 film is clearly the primary topic, a hatnote pointing to the 2011 film is fine. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Traffic is the primary topic. The other topics that use the same term are disambiguated from that primary topic; they are secondary to it. "Traffic (film)" is not a real-world term because the disambiguation part is a Wikipedia construct. Readers will search "Traffic" to find either the primary topic or one of the disambiguated topics on the disambiguation page. In that set of secondary topics, "Traffic (film)" is ambiguous about which film it refers to. No media titled Traffic can be a primary topic when one already exists—the encyclopedic definition. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Support because there is no primary topic here (traffic is the primary topic), so the film articles need to be disambiguated from each other per WP:NCF. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Support per DAB and NCF guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Support. The link Traffic (film) should then redirect to the film section of Traffic (disambiguation). Fortdj33 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Support. If there are two film articles, both being disambiguated, then they both need to be disambiguated and by year works the best here. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Support. Makes sense to me. I note that this is reversing a previous, undiscussed move. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traffic_(2000_film)&oldid=1238176109"