Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

message: Made it clear that using the disambiguator (film) is actually a rule - that is; using (movie) or similar is not just alternative usage, it is not accepted. CapnZapp (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia has articles on films not movies 

message: There can be no such thing. We have an editor now at WP:RM undiscussed moves here arguing on the basis of this shortcut that there is such a thing as primary film rather than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This shortcut should be removed from page and the shortcut deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you disputing the technical shortcut or the content it leads to? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The shortcut, it suggests that there is such a thing as primary film, there is not. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a shortcut to this section of the MOS is useful. The section simply stipulates how to disambiguate film titles when the film is not the primary topic. The editor at that discussion quoting this guideline is not making the case that there is a "primary film", they are correctly opposing the move on the grounds that MOS:FILM does not do partial disambiguation. The nominator of the move is the one incorrectly arguing that there is a "primary film", but he is not quoting this guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the point of a guideline link to a guideline that (correctly) says the opposite? Or maybe that is the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: When was [[WP:PRIMARYFILM]] added to the page?

message: After a months-long discussion at , there was no consensus to create a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" that point to creative works no longer untitled or upcoming, despite clear consensus from past RfD discussions that these redirects should be deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). As an alternate proposal, I suggest the following be added to WP:NCFILM, which can then be referenced in future RfD discussions:  Once again pinging participants of the previous discussion: . InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly untitled/upcoming media 

message: Hi all - I recently participated in a requested move discussion (at Talk:Endless (2020 film)) where it was stated that the terms a/an/the are generally, on their own, seen as insufficient to distinguish titles of films from one another. I was curious to see if this was the case, so I did a bit of searching - but the first applicable case I found, Prestige (film) vs. The Prestige (film), seemed to contradict the claim. However, I'm not well versed in this topic area, so I wanted to bring my question in front of people who are better informed about film-article titling practices than I am. My thoughts are mainly as follows:
* Is it the case that a/an/the alone are normally seen as insufficient disambiguation for the titles of film articles?
* If it is the case, WP:NCFILM should be amended to say so explicitly, as this would constitute an exception in the otherwise determinative policy at WP:SMALLDETAILS.
ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, a/an/the should be sufficient in disambiguation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: agree... WP:SMALLDETAILS says an article would be sufficient. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles (a/an/the) as disambiguators 

message: Should original video animations be disambiguated as (OVA)? I'm asking because someone tagged Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA) as not having a correct name per naming guidelines, but I looked through other OVAs, and many of them are disambiguated as such. I think this needs to be added to the guideline. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVA 

message: Apparently, there was an RM in November of last year which attempted to move Willow (film) to Willow (1988 film), per WP:PFILM, but it was closed as no consensus. Looking at WP:PDABLIST#(film), this is — as far as we know — the only article on Wikipedia which doesn't conform to our guideline. What can and should we do about this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Willow'' 

message: Two RMs have been opened directly challenging WP:PFILM:
* Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)#Requested move 27 September 2023
* Talk:Vertigo (film)#Requested move 29 September 2023
InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMs challenging PFILM 

message: Reviewing the current entries at WP:PDAB#(film)
: I just started a RM for Fuck (film)
: Vertigo (film) survived a RM trying to fully disambiguate it, but it is one of the greatest films of all time and the others are both borderline notable and not really called this so this is a justifiable WP:IAR
: The other entries are 2012 (film), Turbo (film), and ? (film). In each of these cases the film is ambiguous with another film with an extra subtitle. Am I reading the guideline correctly that these should be moved to 2012 (2009 theatrical film) ("2009 film" is still ambiguous with 2012: Supernova, yuck!), Turbo (2013 film), and ? (2011 film)? Or does the guideline only apply to films with the exact same name? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This was already addressed in your unsuccessful RM of Minecraft (film). The answer is that WP:SMALLDETAILS applies since the other films are already naturally disambiguated with their full or alternative titles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the absence of a subtitle does not disambiguate a topic unless other same-named films that have subtitles would not be reasonably referred to without their subtitles. In the case of Minecraft, it may not be reasonable to refer to the documentary simply as Minecraft. The closure summary of the RM also referred to the relative obscurity of the documentary as well as "SMALLDETAILS". Also, of course, the outcome of any particular RM is not necessarily a perfect representation of Wikipedia's collective thinking. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BarrelProof, subtitles are often omitted and although we prefer natural disambiguation that doesn't mean a different film without a subtitle that can't be naturally disambiguated stays at an ambiguous title. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this apply to subtitles?