Talk:Infinity Pool (film)

Requested move 27 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Infinity Pool (film) → Infinity Pool – This may or may not be an uncontroversial technical request, but since Infinity Pool redirects to the relatively-brief, 12-sentence entry for Infinity pool where a hatnote already states, "For the film, see Infinity Pool (film)", it would be simpler, per WP:SMALLDIFFS, if the film dispensed with the parenthetical qualifier and instead displayed the hatnote, "For the pool, see Infinity pool". — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Return in six months. I think it is highly likely that the film will establish a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title case version, given the recent pageview difference. Since the movie was released this week, however, let's give it six months before making the move. Dohn joe (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Wait and see given how recently the movie was released. In the meantime, having "(film)" at the end of the page title isn't likely to do any harm. --Drevolt (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The film was just released. We need more time to see if the movie becomes the primary topic. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. and it's a film, why wouldn't it have (film) in the article title. People are not going to search "Infinity Pool" without "film" to find this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: There's already an article by that name and despite different capitalizations in the second word of the title, it can still be confusing to casual readers. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Aside from the fact that Infinity Pool and infinity pool are two different titles, per WP:DIFFCAPS, the film got 65,000 views yesterday! The redirect Infinity Pool, which had been averaging around 2 hits per day, jumped to 85 hits yesterday, and the article about infinity pools, which had been averaging around 200 hits per day, jumped to over a thousand. It's clear that most users want and expect the film at its title.[1] - Station1 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

DIFFCAPS applies only when it indicates different topic. In this case it likely won't to many, in case of something like Iron Maiden it's obvious. Also a new movie will of course have far more views on first day of release than an older article about pools. That doesn't reflect want or expectations of users, just temporary attention. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

These two things are different topics. Infinity Pool is just as obviously different from an infinity pool as Iron Maiden is from an iron maiden. Caps do make a difference. And yes, certainly the film won't sustain 65,000 hits per day infinitely, but it will get many many multiples of the article about infinity pools for a very long time. So even if DIFFCAPS did not apply, PRIMARYTOPIC certainly would. Station1 (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. A typical reader isn't going to be able to assume they're different unless they're being told its different. You don't need to do that with Iron Maiden. Also a film getting more views when it's recent is just WP:RECENTISM. Assuming that it'll get more than the other article over time is just speculation. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not "just because I say it is" and not "just speculation". It's logical deductions based on the objective data given above and comparison to similarly situated articles. On the contrary, your opposition is based on speculation that readers are getting confused when there is no evidence whatsoever for that. Station1 (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Claims of deduction aren't evidence nor is using one film page recently having more views after its release to claim it'll have more views in future too. That's complete speculation. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Speculation is conjecture with insufficient evidence. Here we have clear objective evidence of current pageviews and the high likelihood (not absolute certainty) that this article will follow past patterns. Station1 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The common pattern is for views to keep falling (they're at 20,000 now) and your basis for changing the title is that it has higher pageviews. Even though you're aware it's only due to the film being recently released. A temporary spike doesn't mean it will necessarily remain so in the long-term. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And I've noticed the views yesterday fell greatly to 40,000. They might keep falling. Of course that's just speculation. Perhaps it'll be better to wait than rushing over a recent film? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, not really speculation. They will keep falling, quite significantly, as I said above. That is the pattern with all new films, and there's no evidence that this will be different. But even if they fall by 90% or more, this article will still be the one the vast majority of readers searching for "Infinity Pool" will be expecting to find. By not titling this article the way most readers expect, we are inconveniencing them, however slightly, with no offsetting benefit for anyone. Station1 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They will keep falling and there's a chance that they will reach the same level as the other article. You claim this is the article they will expect to find but what's the proof? This film isn't a hit, it doesn't seem to have any buzz at least online. It's made like $3.4 million. So what inconvenience? You're assuming the majority will keep looking for this film when it has faded from memory. But you have no proof for that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

They will keep falling but the chance that they will reach the same level as the other article is low. The proof, or rather evidence for that conclusion, is in my original comment. I guess we'll just have to come back here in 6 months and see what the numbers look like then. But let's also remember that the numbers are really irrelevant because the main reason for moving the article is that Infinity Pool is a different title and topic than an infinity pool. Station1 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Making claims that the chance is low is pure speculation. This film isn't some super successful hit. Like I already suggested and you're alsp suggesting, let's wait for some time. If the views on average turn out to be higher then I have no problem. Different topics with same names can still confuse people. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've already explained why it's not pure speculation. And the objective data also suggests that the only confused readers are the ones who search for "Infinity Pool" and wind up at an unexpected article. Station1 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Disambiguate at least as the generic meaning isn't primary for this capitalization. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Different by capitalization of 1 letter vs infinity pool is obscure and leads to the ridiculousness of having to qualify the real thing but not the movie. BTW, this is curious for it's demonstration of the superior taste and judgment of the masses insofar as its' reception is concerned and the embarrassment and exposure of the professional criticism as superficial and insider. I could tell it was crap from the plot. Also totally not a nepo baby. Lycurgus (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be emphasized that no one is proposing "to qualify the real thing but not the movie". The nomination simply posits that neither the pool nor the movie needs to be qualified and each can simply point to the other via hatnotes. The only proposed alternative is to disambiguate, i.e. to create an Infinity pool dab page, with Infinity Pool redirecting to it. Such a dab page would list both the pool and the movie, with a qualifier appended to each. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, the hatnotes applied to the current main namespace situation is a good idea, however the issue/vote is about the proposed action on the namespace itself. Lycurgus (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per all above. Unhelpful to readers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Plot synopsis

Alternating use of "James" and "Foster" to refer to character James Foster in plot synopsis is confusing. Article would be more clear if it stuck to one 69.14.210.209 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The fictional country of the movie is called "Li Tolqa", not "Latoka" 2001:999:250:3F03:347D:2FC2:3AF7:F70F (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I updated the plot summary to correct the country's name and included a Vulture article as reference. It seems that Cronenberg contributed a story titled "Death in Li Tolqa" to a comic anthology in 2015, so I feel confident about this spelling even though I am not finding a good record of the anthology's existence to date. –  Owlettes (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The official press release of the film also mentions "Li Tolqa." I realize my word doesn't count as a source, since the press release is, to my knowledge, not publicly available. I thought I'd still provide the anecdote, should the document surface later. 85.76.79.208 (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is good to know! A friend also mentioned this and I was immediately like "ok send me the link" before she told me, someone who knows nothing about movie press conventions, that these things aren't publicly accessible. Owlettes (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not always true. You shouldn't be discouraged in the future from trying to search for them. For example: https://cdn-media.festival-cannes.com/film_film/0002/54/b39cba1a6b84f896148436843dcaea423ff51442.pdf 85.76.45.103 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

Last sentence of 4th paragraph misspells "as" as "aa":

"shot in the leg aa he runs off into a nearby wilderness." 216.36.158.209 (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In the plot summary, when James brutalizes a clone of himself that he was led to believe was the police chief, the clone is specifically shown with gashes on his lip, nose and eyebrow. Later, at the end of the movie, when James is leaving the resort, he has scars on his lip, nose and eyebrow. However when he's shown sitting at the resort in the monsoon, he has no scars. He sent a clone to return home in his place while he decided to remain at the resort.

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Lightoil (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Generally positive reviews" Not really.

What is the metric for determining calling it "generally positive reviews"? This movie hasn't received generally positive reviews. Do a quick Google search for reviews of this movie and you'll see that reviews are MIXED at best, trending more toward negative. 24.212.225.190 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the actual reception section and it should provide more clarity. We're summing up the reviews from aggregate sites, which all indicate "generally favorable" reviews. MOS:FILMCRITICS may help as well. Millahnna (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the critics reviews. And there is a large number of negative reviews. That is my point. Look at Rotten Tomatoes, for example. Lots of negative reviews by established critics. 24.212.225.190 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe include those reviews in the page? Happy editing! Mike Allen 18:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look later and see if I can find some common criticisms and find a different way to sum up reception in the lead. I'm bogged down by two blank plots for films I'm watching very slowly right now but this does go back to the conversation I started recently at MOS:FILM so I should probably take a stab at it. THe only place in this article where we qualify the overall reception is in the lead. We skipped over it entirely in the actual reception section, as we often do. Millahnna (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The reviews are fairly clearly generally favourable as outlined in this page under the Critical response section. The film has a 7.1 average on Rotten Tomatoes with 87% of the critics rating it "fresh", and a 72 on Metacritic. Those are fairly good numbers, and I believe referring to them as "mixed" is inaccurate. Even "largely positive", as I put it in my edit, is arguably underselling it, but I wanted to acknowledge that some of the critics seemed to have a strong dislike of it among the many who liked it. In the end, the average is what determines how it was "generally" received, not the individual negative reviews we can pick out from prominent critics. For comparison, the page on Shazam!, with almost identical numbers (RT: 90%/7.3, MC: 71), has its critical response summarized as "received positive reviews from critics" with no qualifiers at all. TradeJmark (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A similar story for The Menu (RT: 88%/7.5, MC: 71, "received positive reviews from critics") and The Black Phone (RT: 83%/7.0, MC: 65, "A critical ... success"). TradeJmark (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)