Talk:Traffic (2000 film)

2000 movie instead of movie?

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)

Weaselly paragraph

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)

Cleanup

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)

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)

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)

Academy Award for Best Picture

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)

Plot Analysis

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

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)

Headlines

• The Traffic Report With Steven Soderbergh
• Steven Soderbergh
• Dope and Glory
• Steven Soderbergh - Traffic
• Benicio Del Toro - Traffic
• Steven Soderbergh is busy, happy, planning next film
• Gladiator, Traffic lead Golden Globe nominees
• Soderbergh, on Border Patrol, Dissects the Drug Economy
• Red Light, Green Light
• INTERVIEW: Man of the Year, Steven Soderbergh Traffics in Success, Part One
• INTERVIEW: Man of the Year, Steven Soderbergh Traffics in Success, Part Two
• Follow the Muse: Inspiration To Balance Lofty and Light
• Go! Go! Go!

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

Production country

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)

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)

Identities of winners of Oscars and other awards

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)

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

Requested move

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• Support per DAB and NCF guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The link Traffic (film) should then redirect to the film section of Traffic (disambiguation). Fortdj33 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If there are two film articles, both being disambiguated, then they both need to be disambiguated and by year works the best here. BOVINEBOY2008 21:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Makes sense to me. I note that this is reversing a previous, undiscussed move. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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.