Talk:Mid90s

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mid90s article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: American

	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 American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

Feel free to clean them up and make em look better. I was in a rush to get the page up and running since the film had already commenced principal production. TheMovieGuy (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMovieGuy: Most references, as well as IMDb, call the film "Mid ’90s", rather than "Mid-90s". I think moving it would be appropriate. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 July 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Sources show Mid90s. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-90s → Mid90s – Please remove the hyphen from the title and format as Mid90s. This is the official title treatment. Do not sign this. Andy.England (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore back to Mid-90s (film) Mid-90s means the mid-90s. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without an apostrophe, it would be mid-90s; we don't even have a redirect for mid-1990s. Anyone putting "mid" at the start would be looking for the film. I don't know if this article should be "Mid90s", "Mid '90s", or "Mid-90s" as all are in sources. Peter James (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you'd think anyone searching for "Mid90s" would be looking for anything other than the film, In ictu oculi. — Film Fan 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the film is pretty obscure and "mid 90s" in GBooks doesn't mean the film In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, The film is Mid90s with no space or hyphen. It clearly doesn't need any more clarification. — Film Fan 21:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we are going to not have film still strongly oppose Mid90s, which is not what sources have: "Jonah Hill To Helm ‘Mid 90s’ From His Spec Script In Feature Directorial Debut" In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mid90s. While "mid-90s" is somewhat correct to describe the era, the title of THIS FILM is Mid90s so it's irrelevant. The article is about the film, not the era. See poster, A24 website, and trailer for spelling - name of film is shown on screen at 2:12. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "keep" should read as Support as you are supporting the move. — Film Fan 12:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mid90s is the correct and only title, so this couldn't be more obvious. This did not require a move request. — Film Fan 15:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is Mid 90s in sources In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] etc. — Film Fan 22:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. Mid90s is the correct title. We can add a hatnote to 1990s for clarity, but there is no article about the middle of the 1990s. BOVINEBOY2008 20:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The 5 sources provided in the article (by order) use "Mid 90s", "Mid ’90s", "MID-90S", "Mid ’90s" and "Mid90s". I'm not sure how any of you are so sure what the title is without providing any significint source to back up your claim. As a side note to the 3 supporters of the "Mid90s", the 4 sources, while not using the same title all had a space (or dash) between "Mid" and "90s". --Gonnym (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above, Gonnym. — Film Fan 12:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now those sources do indeed support Mid90s. Support the move. --Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opinionated Plot section

Greetings I love . I am not very familiar with Wiki style, but the plot description here is full of interpretation which could be disputed--rather than a direct representation of what appears on the screen. Is this really how this part should be written?

Some examples:

"Ruben begins to resent Stevie because he feels he is being replaced as the “younger kid” in the group." (This one I agree with, but I don't think it is explicit in the film and other intepretations could also be valid.)

"a fed-up and suicidal Stevie attempts to asphyxiate himself with a cord from a Super Nintendo controller" (I disagree. He practices self-harm a few times in the film so this is not necessarily suicidal behavior.)

"Having alienated his mother and brother," (Disagree. My interpretation: "Feeling betrayed by his mother and brother,"--but really shouldn't it be something more neutral like: "After the stress with his mother and brother," ???)

"Ray hopes to make a career in skating, and chats up two professionals as potential sponsors. Fuckshit, who is drunk and high, tries to sabotage Ray’s chances by embarrassing him in front of the pros." (Disagree.)

"Ian gives Stevie a container of orange juice as a peace offering." (Disagree.)

"Moved by the fact they are there for Stevie, Dabney encourages them to visit Stevie's room." (Agreed, but still not explicit. The next line uses the word "appear"--which is also used in another instance and signals the writer's interpretaion. This seems more appropriate if an interpretation is to be given but I would think the plot description should be written more objectively. Thoughts? Thanks.) 189.122.230.52 (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watch options

Where can I watch? 2601:681:4500:2830:E4AF:AA65:72CA:32EB (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stylized title

At The Social Network, an editor wanted to include the stylized alternative title the social network and cited this article as an example. While some stylizations may be obviously different from the common name (plain title-case text), all lowercase or all uppercase may not necessarily be stylized enough. It should depend on if reliable sources use it. That said, looking at Metacritic's 45 reviews, here are five reviews that I found that writes mid90s:

I don't know if this is considered enough when the other 40 (or so; some links didn't work) reviews write Mid90s. EDIT: It may be worth noting that "Mid90s" is already a kind of stylization, like "Mid-90s" with the hyphen being dropped. No one is writing "Mid-90s", and "Mid90s" is the most common name here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]