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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
I read she worked as a script doctor on this film
188.29.134.80 (
talk) 18:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Requested move 29 August 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.
– Unnecessary disambiguators where a
Template:About will suffice.
Star Garnet (
talk) 17:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk) 07:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: pages with content, such as
River Wild, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "
River Wild →
River Wild (disambiguation)" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. If this request is granted, then the {{One other topic}} template may be applied. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 23:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support on principal since this was an undiscussed move. Looking at other similar setups with a title that is similar except for a the, they usually aren't disambiguated so precisely. Not to mention, in this case both films are related. --
Quiz shows 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:SMALLDETAILS. The
base names are different, so should not be parenthetically disambiguated with each other. Hatnotes are the appropriate form of disambiguation here. The dab page can likely be deleted, but for now, move to the qualified version.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note:
WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran
(talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose because The River Wild and River Wild are indistinguishable in common parlance. Either term could be plausibly searched for, and I think
WP:RECENTISM muddles the matter with the 2023 film outpacing the 1994 film in terms of page views at this time. We have no idea what the enduring trend for both will be. To strive to remove the disambiguation term from both is pedantically minimalist. It's possible to be overly concise. And off-Wikipedia searches for either topic will have the disambiguation terms (in essence, the release years) visible to lock in incoming readers without any potential confusion.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 14:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
In terms of the title, "The" is a sufficiently distinguishable part of the title to differentiate the topics, e.g. we have
The Batman (film) that is not parenthetically disambiguated with other entries at
Batman (film). SMALLDETAILS does not imply that they can't be confused with one another, it says that the way to disambiguate them is with hatnotes (as proposed), not parenthetical disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation is only used when two or more topics share the exact title and there is no way to resolve the conflict without wandering to far from
WP:CRITERIA.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 16:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at
WP:CRITERIA, we need precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." As demonstrated above, without the release years (and associated media type), the two films are not clearly distinguished from each other. Furthermore,
WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." I had said before that it is possible to be overly concise, and the quoted language shows that it is possible to be too brief, and I think that is likely here. Having a year added (with the associated media type) clearly distinguishes both from each other. It's a little extra text that is worth the tradeoff. We shouldn't be in a hurry to make article titles exceedingly short when confusion is clearly possible.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
I read she worked as a script doctor on this film
188.29.134.80 (
talk) 18:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Requested move 29 August 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.
– Unnecessary disambiguators where a
Template:About will suffice.
Star Garnet (
talk) 17:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk) 07:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: pages with content, such as
River Wild, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "
River Wild →
River Wild (disambiguation)" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. If this request is granted, then the {{One other topic}} template may be applied. P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.put'er there 23:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support on principal since this was an undiscussed move. Looking at other similar setups with a title that is similar except for a the, they usually aren't disambiguated so precisely. Not to mention, in this case both films are related. --
Quiz shows 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:SMALLDETAILS. The
base names are different, so should not be parenthetically disambiguated with each other. Hatnotes are the appropriate form of disambiguation here. The dab page can likely be deleted, but for now, move to the qualified version.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note:
WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran
(talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose because The River Wild and River Wild are indistinguishable in common parlance. Either term could be plausibly searched for, and I think
WP:RECENTISM muddles the matter with the 2023 film outpacing the 1994 film in terms of page views at this time. We have no idea what the enduring trend for both will be. To strive to remove the disambiguation term from both is pedantically minimalist. It's possible to be overly concise. And off-Wikipedia searches for either topic will have the disambiguation terms (in essence, the release years) visible to lock in incoming readers without any potential confusion.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 14:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
In terms of the title, "The" is a sufficiently distinguishable part of the title to differentiate the topics, e.g. we have
The Batman (film) that is not parenthetically disambiguated with other entries at
Batman (film). SMALLDETAILS does not imply that they can't be confused with one another, it says that the way to disambiguate them is with hatnotes (as proposed), not parenthetical disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation is only used when two or more topics share the exact title and there is no way to resolve the conflict without wandering to far from
WP:CRITERIA.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 16:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at
WP:CRITERIA, we need precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." As demonstrated above, without the release years (and associated media type), the two films are not clearly distinguished from each other. Furthermore,
WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." I had said before that it is possible to be overly concise, and the quoted language shows that it is possible to be too brief, and I think that is likely here. Having a year added (with the associated media type) clearly distinguishes both from each other. It's a little extra text that is worth the tradeoff. We shouldn't be in a hurry to make article titles exceedingly short when confusion is clearly possible.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
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.