Jump to content

Talk:Showgirls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

what film studio produced Showgirls?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.232 (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2002 (UTC)[reply]

MGM [[David de Paoli]]—Preceding undated comment added at 16:57, 9 October 2002 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall Nomi pushing Crystal down the stairs? Wasn't it someone else?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgrant (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was definately Nomi! It was the major turnaround in the plot where Nomi's character changes from "innocently involved in a bad world" to "turned bad." It's also the drive behind her conflict with other character for the rest of the movie (She gets into a fight with her best friend Molly over it and there's a good 3 minutes of footage of them arguing over it because Molly saw the dancer who claims that Nomi was nowhere near Cristal when she fell, and that dancer was looking the other way. That dancer, in turn, is covering for Nomi because Nomi covered for her when she threw the beads on the floor and injured the black dancer previously.) Drama! In the final scene Cristal forgives her, saying "There's always someone younger and hungrier coming down the stairs behind you."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.180.113 (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that European reaction to the film was more positive than American reaction -- and that French critics view it as a critique of American consumer culture. A blurb about that might be nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvolio80 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly surprising - Europeans are more concerned with violence in movies (as opposed to nudity), whereas the American audience can't stand seeing naked human bodies. --Bicycle repairman 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this movie wasn't the nudity. The problems were a mediocre plot, terrible dialogue, and bad acting. MK2 16:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also notable, it infactually states Nomi pushed Cristal down the stairs to get ahead, but that isn't the case. It's a point of plot contention because those who *do* know that Nomi did, in fact, intentionally push Cristal think she did it to get ahead, when in fact it was an un-meditated, rash reaction to Cristal's treatment of Nomi onstage in the preceeding dance number. 151.197.51.96 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Europeans are more concerned with violence in movies..." That's not true, not here in Sweden anyways. We haven't had movie-censorship of any kind since "Casino" (ie 1995). Addicted2Sanity 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the movie was also brutally violent. So how does the movie's content factor into differing reviews in Europe? (Exempting Sweden, of course.) Verminjerky (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing content regarding the films NC-17 rating

[edit]

There is some interesting facts regarding the films NC-17 rating that should be included in my opinion such as:

  • It was at the time, and likely still is the most widely distributed NC-17 film in the U.S.
  • In order to convince many theaters that normally would not show an NC-17 film to show this one, the distributers offered their own security guards to ensure no minors would be able to enter the theaters where it was showing.
  • Some anti-obscenity groups, especially some Christian based groups, picketed some theaters for showing the film. This led some theaters that had been showing the film to withdraw it.
  • Supposedly, the filmakers originally thought they could use this film to show audiences outside major cities that NC-17 films wheren't simply porno films in disguise. Supposedly, the criticism of how the sexual content was treated in the film was said to give the NC-17 rating a negative connotation with many American audiences causing many studios for a time to avoid releasing films with a NC-17. Instead they where such films would be cutting for a R-rating or released unrated. The moderate success of the NC-17 film The Dreamers, apparently made studios more comfortable releasing NC-17 art films again.

If I find the time I will dig up sources for the above info and ad it myself. --Cab88 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Scene

[edit]

I feel like the comments RE: the rape scene need to be referenced or cited, but I'm not sure how. A search on google for "rape scene in showgirls" brings up 21 results, and all of them lead to online discussions which discuss the scene unfavorably. It seems to be almost universally loathed, yet I can find no one authoritative citation of this fact. Pacian 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loathing is an appropriate response to a rape scene. The American audience is too used to seeing rape exploited simply as a plot point in an entertainment, so it's refreshing--if disturbing--to see a rape scene portrayed as horrifically as it is in Showgirls. See "I Spit on Your Grave" for another example of a film that makes it abundantly clear that the rape scene is not intended for entertainment. As brutal as the rape scenes are in these movies, it's clear that both of them are anti-rape movies. So the scene has fulfilled its purpose. (Frankly, I'm a bit repulsed when someone suggests that the rape scene in Showgirls should somehow be softened.)lissener 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version on TNT

[edit]

Hilariously the version of this I am watching on TNT right now has bras and other clothing "drawn on". I feel like I'm watching some warped version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Haven't seen any nudity whatsoever. 70.189.213.149 09:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Character?

[edit]

Sorry, I saw this movie many years ago and it was so bad that I "escaped" far before the end... But it seems to me that there were a character not cited in the plot section of the article... he was a black boy, friendly with her, that told her he studied a new dance just for her. They almost have sex, but she quits -her "problems", what a good taste for a movie! Bah!-. Later in the movie she returns to this friend and she finds him with another woman, telling her he created a new dance just for her (only to have sex...).
Is it right? Is this part of this movie? If yes, although only a sub-plot, it completes the picture of a false and cruel entertainment industry, so I think it should be included in the article. Bye! --151.27.7.179 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section removed from entry

[edit]

The following bits o' trivia were removed from Showgirls entry. I'm posting them here on the remote chance someone can justify their inclusion.

  • In The Simpsons episode Brother's Little Helper, Marge and Homer see the movie on their date.
  • During a The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air episode, Will goes to see the movie eight times with one time being on a date.
  • In an episode of Family Guy called Hell Comes to Quahog, Peter says that cable always ruins things. Then a cut-off shows Peter laying on his bed watching TV when an announcer says "And now back to Showgirls... on TBS", which disappoints him.
  • In the Family Guy album Live in Las Vegas, fictional reporter Tom Tucker describes his association between Las Vegas and Showgirls; specifically, his fantasy of "Elizabeth Berkley and Gina Gershon having girl-on-girl sex". Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the film so poorly regarded?

[edit]

I cannot understand why this film is so mocked. Sure there is a *lot* of nudity but once you get past that the acting's not so bad nor is the script so terrible. There are plenty worse films. I think it has a certain kitschy charm. Any comments?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. My feeling is that the average american movie-goer simply doesn't want to cope with movies that present certain facets of life without sanitizing them in the ritualistic manner which have become commonplace in most films. The 'kitschy' aspect is certainly there, and has eluded most moviegoers completely. Just as much as what happened with Verhoeven's other movie, Starship Troopers. They're both essays on violence: Showgirls deals with sexual and interpersonal violence, Starship Troopers deals with militaristic violence and institutionalized xenophobia (against an alien species). But both appear to promote that violence, at least at first sight; most people could not get past that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.19.198 (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree but agree. There are plenty more awful films, but the lead performance... whether it be the fault of the lead or the director/script... is overwhelmingly stilted and stereotypical. If it's taken as intentional camp, as Verhoven may actually have intended, it's actually a little brilliant. I'm obliged to point out the initial dance club scene where Nomi incites a minor riot. It's pretty awful, BUT it's done to the musical background of David Bowie/Trent Reznor's "I'm Afraid of Americans", which I think elevates it a little for the implication. ---D--- (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously sympathetic toward the movie, trying hard to show that it wasn't such a failure, it was the NC-17 rating and "controversial" sex subjetc the one to blame for the poor performance in theaters (not the script, or the acting, or etc) and (like practically all bad movies and box office bombs in Wikipedia) is regarded as a "cult film". It has became a fashion to brand as "cult film" all failure films in Wikipedia--Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the article says three times that the film made $100 million from video rentals and became one of MGM's top 20 all-time bestsellers who wrote this? Verhoeven? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Sexploitation' Label

[edit]

I don't understand how distilling this film down to the single adjective 'sexploitation' really communicates to the reader what Showgirls is. I don't doubt that some people have seen the film because of the nudity and sexuality, but I think they are the disappointed, they are the ones who label it bad.

The reason Showgirls has achieved cult status is that audience 'gets' it for what it is -- for what all Paul Verhoeven's (American) films are -- ironic comedy, camp.

Gina Gershon has been widely quoted as saying that she played her role so that drag queens would want to dress as her on Halloween.

I think the term 'sexploitation' is misleading, and limiting, and I think it should be removed. BigJohnSF (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Motive of the rape ?

[edit]

Andrew tries to get closer to Nomi. She introduces her friend. Andrew participates the rape, but does not penetrate her himself. This happens just after Kristal has been hurt. This sounds revenge to me. They wanted to hurt Nomi, but could not get together with her, so they decided to hurt her by proxy. Just my toughts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.161.130 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation section

[edit]

I could have sworn I have seen some writing about this film comparing it to the works of Russ Meyer, in particular his Beyond the Valley of the Dolls which when compared in broad strokes does touch on many of the same notes as Showgirls. I can't find the source so I can't add this to the article, but I'm putting this here in case anyone else is able to find such a citation. With the film being reevaluated as a "serious satire" (to quite the article), it isn't unrealistic to compare it to Meyer who made similar films that were as much about satire and social commentary as they were sexploitation. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one create a category for NC-17 rated films

[edit]

How does one create a category for films that are rated NC-17 on Wikipedia? I feel that there should be one. If anyone has any information on how this category can be created, please share. Thanks very much.Frschoonover (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A category for R-rated films was previously created and deleted, so I suspect that one for NC-17 films would eventually be deleted. There is a List of NC-17 rated films article, though, which may serve a similar function. Trivialist (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Showgirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2020

[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.

No consensus to move. Technically I should not be the one closing this since I participated in the discussion, but no one else has stepped up, the close goes against my own !vote, and the absence of consensus at this point has become glaringly clear, with recent participation trending strongly against the proposed move. Both the current title and the proposed title are permissible titles for this topic, and precedents can be found for both potential schemes, so the discussion comes down to a matter of preference among competing policies, not a single overriding policy mandate. There is no apparent appetite for a proposed alternative of pointing the title to the disambiguation page, Showgirl (disambiguation). If anyone disagrees with my closing due to my involvement in the discussion, ping me in the morning and I'll revert myself. BD2412 T 06:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showgirls → Showgirls (film) – The primary topic for this title is showgirl, which seems to be acknowledged by its listing at the very top of Showgirl (disambiguation). This title should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to showgirl.
Note that there is also Show Girl (1928 film), so this page may be better titled as Showgirls (1995 film). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showgirl (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @In ictu oculi. I have fixed[[[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]]] the nomination.
@Mikus, BD2412, Station1, Crouch, Swale, and Allan Rice Sorry, my nomination contained crucial typos. Please can your review the revised nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(response to ping) I had assumed the lack of the s might be a typo, so my previous comment stands. The film is the clear primary topic for the title "Showgirls". Station1 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1 it seems utterly bizarre to assert that a film named X is the primary topic for X. Do you hare any evidence for your assertion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I already presented it in my original comment. Please view this chart showing pageviews for Showgirls and showgirl over the past 90 days. It shows that about seven times as many users read the article about the film as read the article about showgirls, even if we assume every person reading the showgirl article first landed on Showgirls by mistake (very unlikely). At least 1500, and more likely over 1700, people per day want to read about the film, while only a couple hundred want to read about showgirls. If Showgirls is turned into a redirect, it would mean that only a fraction of people reaching that link would be on the article they want, while the large majority would have to click on a hatnote to get to the article they want. That is a disservice to the majority. Station1 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want additional evidence, just Google "showgirls -wikipedia" (without quote marks) and look through the first few pages of results. Station1 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly the 2nd criteria, see Cars/Cars (film) example at WP:PLURALPT and Cats/Cats (musical) (a level 5 vital article) for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think WP:SMALLDETAILS does apply here. See Window vs. (Microsoft) Windows. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PLURALPT is probably what you mean but Cars v Cars (film) and Cats v Cats (musical) are similar to this though maybe not completely due to the larger view difference here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SMALLDETAILS says "Plural forms may in certain instances also be used to naturally distinguish articles" and then references WP:PLURALPT. But "car(s)" and "cat(s)" are very common nouns, and a reader searching their plural form will most likely be looking for the singular article subjects, which is why their plurals should redirect to them. "Showgirl(s)" is a much less common noun, and I think someone searching for "showgirls" is more likely to be searching for the film article, which is why WP:SMALLDETAILS should apply here. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Showgirl (disambiguation) as a compromise per Crouch, Swale. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Showgirls (1995 film), and redirect the plural to the singular, with a hatnote there to the DAB of course. Really, if we think that this obscure piece of erotica is the primary topic for a fairly common English term, then it's just another piece of evidence of what a failure the whole concept of primary topic is. It's certainly notable for its cult following. But both those looking for the film, and those looking for or linking to the plural of showgirl, will more likely assume that showgirls will lead them to the singular. Most readers don't know or care about our stupid rules. So, does pointing showgirls to the film improve Wikipedia? Does it make it easier for anyone to find the article they want? Not a chance. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since "showgirl" and "showgirls" are easily interchangeable for the primary topic. Strippers redirects to stripper, for example. Gambler and gamblers redirect to gambling. Film directors redirects to film director. No one will be WP:ASTONISHed to land at the primary topic. No issue with using hatnotes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To me, the film is the clear primary topic for the plural form. Call it WP:ASTONISH or whatever you like. I would expect "Showgirls" to be about that film. It gets 7x the views of showgirl per above evidence, and I don't think the generic showgirl is such a well-used long-term-significance term (like bell or apple would be) that those page views should be overridden in the plural version of this name. Per Andrewa's comment which I've just seen here, "the primary consideration used to be the reader, and still should be". Readers will be served best by the current arrangements as they stand now.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It really isn't. Just Google the term "showgirls" and see what comes up... The primary topic for the plural form is overwhelmingly the film. Even when you Google in the singular the film still crops up a lot. The argument seems to be predicated on the fact that the generic showgirl, which was apparently a thing in Paris and Vegas at one time, and for which we have just a low-quality stub article, is vastly more significant than a mainstream film that came out in the 1990s and has vast coverage in reliable sources (often for the wrong reasons!). It just doesn't stack up.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It really is. The film is directly derived from the primary topic. Just because a film is named after a common topic doesn't mean it gets to trump that common topic as primary. Common topics have long-term significance. "Showgirls" as a common topic has a large historical and cultural meaning. Showgirls were a thing before the film, and they continue to be a thing regardless of the film. Examples:
  • Burlesque west: Showgirls, sex, and sin in postwar vancouver
  • Baseball, Apple Pie, and Burlesque Queens: Nationalism in Walt Kuhn's Portraits of Showgirls
  • Showgirls and stars: Black-cast revues and female performers in Britain 1903-1939
  • Mammy Goes to Las Vegas: Showgirls and the Constancy of African-American Female Stereotypes
  • Gangster, Gamblers, Showgirls and Revolutionaries in 1950s Cuba
In contrast, a simplistic Googling does not indicate anything substantive. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the title of the film is derived from another article topic does not mean that the film can't still be the primary topic as the plural form. If it's more likely that someone searching for "showgirls" is looking for the article on the film, then the film certainly can be the primary topic, and Google search results are actually pretty good evidence of what someone searching a particular term is likely looking for. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The city of Boston in Massacusetts is directly derived from the smaller English town of Boston, Lincolnshire, but nobody would suggest the latter should be the primary topic. It's clear that of the two usual WP:PTOPIC criteria, common usage favours the film so the only real question we have to answer is whether "long-term significance" means we should set aside the common usage. For major concepts like apple or bell that's fairly clearcut. But for showgirl? Very dubious IMHO. Its long-term significance is limited, particularly given that it doesn't seem to be something that exists much anymore, even in Vegas.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this is similar to the Boston example since they are 2 very different places miles away from each other with the only similarity being the name while in this case the film is intended to invoke the generic meaning so it could be argued that WP:DABCONCEPT somewhat applies. But I do agree that in this case the generic meaning probably isn't primary due to its smaller views and the fact the article doesn't have that much content unlike Apple and Cars. I'm not strongly against keeping this here but no primary topic might well be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Thanks to Andrewa for pointing out the rules support the current title over the proposed title, but following the rules is not the main reason to oppose. It’s because following the rules makes a better encyclopedia. Anyone using the WP search box with the search term showgirls is almost certainly looking for this article about the film. Let’s not send them to some other article, or to a god forsaken dab page. This practical argument for optimizing user experience is supported by policy in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (this article is viewed 7x more than Showgirl), WP:SMALLDETAILS, and WP:PLURALPT; policy designed to make the best possible experience for users. —В²C ☎ 07:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the rules support the current title at all! As so often, they're not clear either way, as evidenced by the variety of opinions above as to their application. We all know that you hate to arrive at a DAB page, but for most readers, loading a DAB is a win. On the other hand, going to the wrong article is a loss for anyone, as is not recognising the article they want because we've put it at an ambiguous title which they think means something else. Ah yes, you regard a DAB as a wrong page. We have agreed to disagree on this I think, but your view is important so thanks for raising it, and for the ping. A DAB gets me quickly and unambiguously to the article I want, so for me it's a win. Andrewa (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Andrewa: just interjecting in this thread here: we can agree to disagree on the pros and cons of whether to land the readers on this page as PTOPIC first, or the dab page first, I know you have a longstanding opinion that primary topics may not serve readers best, which is fair enough. But your !vote above appears to advocate neither, instead suggesting we should make a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the considerably less viewed and (to me at least) somewhat obscure topic that is the stub at showgirl. I still favour retaining the current status quo, as I don't think anyone would deny that the majority of readers typing "Showgirls" into the search box would be seeking the film. But if we really have to do a move, then targeting the dab page is vastly better than redirecting to showgirl. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Very good point and I have modified my !vote above accordingly. Andrewa (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Anyone typing "Showgirls" into the search box who would be seeking the film would only be helped by the film being suggested back to them as Showgirls (film), and Showgirls (1995 film) would be even better. Only committed Wikipedian editors know without hesitation that a title, which could be singular, present as a plural, must be a composition title. Singular/plural is too small a SMALLDETAIL. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This assertion would be correct if showgirl were the primary topic for the plural term "showgirls". Like "bells" and "apples" are primary topic in either singular or plural. This case is different though, because in the plural form the film is clearly primary per heavy favouring in common usage, offsetting the possible long-term significance because the Vegas/Paris term is still somewhat obscure, unlike bells and apples. Since Showgirls is not a contender for the singular "showgirl" but it is primary topic for "showgirls", it's correct in this case to separate them out. For similar examples see Windows vs window, Airheads vs airhead etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I really don’t see your contention. Showgirls is the plural of showgirl. The movie could have been about a singular showgirl, or multiple showgirls. The movie is not a particularly important topic. The encyclopedia likes, strongly, to have singularly titles, and plurals going to the singular. Windows is an extraordinarily internationally prominent topic, so it is very special. Airhead is a particularly obscure topic. These are not rule setting precedent examples. The Vegas/Paris term is obscure? Google searching both terms shows, ignoring the 1995 movie, the same long term topic, decades to centuries, and it being quite international. Images from the 1995 movie gets prominence due to the exact title match matching sentences matching image captions, and these are search engine artefacts, not scholarly significance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination; Crouch, Swale; BD2412; In ictu oculi; King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠; Andrewa; Erik; Necrothesp and SmokeyJoe. Would support either Showgirls (film) or Showgirls (1995 film), but would prefer Showgirls (1995 film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Born2cycle, this is clearly the primary topic, and someone typing in this instead of the shorter "showgirl" is much more likely looking for the film, not the occupation. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:PLURALPT. No need for the year as far as I can see. -- Netoholic @ 08:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PLURALPT says the opposite of what you are implying it says. It says we should assess the plural primary topic separate from the singular.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular". In this case, I place the basic plural over the film named after the basic topic. -- Netoholic @ 09:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are literally arguing the opposite of what the linked page says. "A plural form is treated like any other topic", something you haven't attempted to do at all - you're simply trying to invoking some sort of "default" redirect to the singular. The bullet points then go on to say "Since normally users can be expected to search/link for/to topics using the singular form, searching/linking with a plural form is likely to be for a topic named with the plural form, when applicable" with the example that Queens which doesn't redirect to Queen. Again, exactly the same situation here.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already !voted above): To me this situation is quite different from Talk:Clerks (1994 film)#Requested move 14 July 2020. In this case, we are comparing a film which is quite well-known against a profession which is not so well-known. In the other case, we are comparing a relatively obscure film against a very common profession, so there Clerks is an obvious WP:PLURALPT to me. However, Showgirls doesn't quite rise to the level of household name like Windows. Hence I reaffirm my support for disambiguation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REQUEST FOR ADMIN CLOSE would request that this RM be closed only by an admin given that (i) we have had at least two poor non-admin closes in relation to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC yesterday and at Move Review now. (ii) misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as WP:PRIMARYTITLE in several oppose above. (iii) The compromise suggestion Retarget to Showgirl (disambiguation) as a compromise per Crouch, Swale, means that several of the oppose arguments have been neutralised. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "compromise" neutralizes the opposes. It certainly doesn't neutralize mine. A second RM can be opened after this one is closed regarding the proposal to retarget to a disambiguation page. But the close for this RM should stick just to the original proposal. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either way the request here is for an ADMIN CLOSE. We could re-run, but it looks like a forgone conclusion, cf Jaws (film) not just Jaws. Incidentally why aren't the opposers trying to move Jaws (film) to plain Jaws, how is this different? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't the supporters trying to retarget Windows to Window or Window (disambiguation)? Every case is different, and we have to look at each case to determine what the best option is. Maybe Jaws (film) should be moved, but that's a question for a different RM discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Rreagan that's True. Although targeting to a dab is preferable to a straight redirect to showgirl, it is still a distant second choice in terms of the right thing to do for readers. The film is far and away the primary topic (and probably the primary title too, although I have no idea what that means). And anything other than the status quo is simply making life harder for readers for no great benefit.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would (weakly) support having no primary topic for "Windows" (but I would oppose making the building part primary). I think also that there is no clear primary topic here which is why I support the move but oppose redirecting to the singular title. @Amakuru: the reference to PRIMARYTITLE is probably to cases like Talk:People from Ibiza (song)#Requested move 28 June 2020, Talk:Novae#Requested move 29 June 2020 and Talk:Roulettes#Requested move 28 June 2020 where many oppose arguments were simply arguing that because the topic was the only one that could be placed at the title the topic was primary. That doesn't appear to have happened as much though here and more policy based arguments against have been presented here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: ah fair enough, well that makes sense. Of course, the notion that there's no such thing as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is always debunked, and the fact that a particular topic enjoys a different title is rarely a consideration in these debates. But the flipside of that argument has to hold sway too. Just because there is some WP:DICDEF term existing at a singular name doesn't mean the plural or other SMALLDETAILS-separated name is automatically *not* a contender for its own title. Each individual term, singular or plural, Airplane or Airplane! should be evaluated on its own terms, independent of others. I've noticed that you routinely favour disambiguation pages in these discussions, which is fair enough, and maybe is a good compromise where common usage and long-term significance clash seriously. In this case I just don't see that as being the case. The DICDEF showgirl simply isn't a major enough topic, with its 200 page views per day. Apple or bell it is not. And IMHO is just isn't significant enough to kick out the film even just to a dab page, given that the latter has with 10x the page views, albeit that it was a ratings flop and not everyone finds porn movies tasteful.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes while many inexperienced editors (or at least those who don't commonly participate in primary topic RM discussions) don't realize PRIMARYREDIRECT they often also don't get SMALLDETAILS either. An interesting example is Cricket v Crickets where both the sport and insect are contenders for the singular but only the insect is for the plural meaning either the plural should go to the insect or DAB but not the sport. I think that there are reasonable points for either disambiguation or keeping it as is. I do definitely find you're point that the singular titled topic is not that much more than a DICDEF and 10x views convincing which is definitely not the case with the likes of Apple or Cars that are commonly cited for PT#2. So indeed I would be happy for this to be kept as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:PLURALPT, the plural form serves as adequate disambiguation. Those who choose to search for a plural version of the title can easily make their way their through the hatnote. That page views for this subject also dominate over showgirl is also helpful in this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PLURALPT. Calidum 08:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Technical mumbo jumbo move that only inconveniences readers. Showgirls itself has a combined 4 million views across the project and the article is in 22 other Wikis, [1], meanwhile showgirl itself only has 500k views all together and in 9 diff wikis. [2] The 1928 film has 67 total views, probably helped by this discussion. [3]. this will only inconvenience our readers at the cost of wikipedias technical worries. what exactly does this achieve for our readers? GuzzyG (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. It's extremely unusual for a plural form to have any sizeable fraction of the pageviews of the singular form, let alone a multiple of those pageviews. This is clearly a separate primarytopic from "showgirl". Dohn joe (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PLURALPT, the movie is the primary topic for the pluralized version of the word, a hatnote covers the rare case of confusion. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Category:Showgirls is about the preformer in general, maybe that should be renamed to disambiguate if this is kept to avoid confusion though it could probably be argued that this article should be in there anyway as a sub topic since its about showgirls. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Comments on the broader issues welcome at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Plurals. TIA Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2020 (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.

Major source

[edit]

This deep and readable consideration of the film looks at the views of it as, distinctively, camp, awful, great, satire and accurate, and could power much of this article: How Showgirls exposed the rot of our misogynistic culture, BBC. - Onanoff (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Showgirls (soundtrack) into Showgirls

[edit]

Couldn't find enough independent coverage primarily discussing the soundtrack itself to justify keeping it separate. This article from Billboard is a start, but everything else I saw only mentioned the soundtrack briefly among other discussion of the film overall. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging it since there isn’t enough coverage. @QuietHere Spectrallights (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Showgirls&oldid=1210363000"