Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

WikiProject Film
General information ()
Main project page talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Israeli cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

How to properly disambiguate films from the same year?

What is the proper procedure when you can't disambiguate films with the same title in the same year easily "by country"? E.G. Wolf (2021 drama film) vs. Wolf (2021 thriller film)? Are you supposed to disambiguate by director? Or by "genre"? The latter seems problematic to me, which is why I have reservations about the "Wolf" example above. Or is there some other way?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film) and Wolf (2021 Indian film) too bad? —El Millo (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would go by geographical location of the owning company before it would be director/genre/etc.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mix
By director: Carmen (1915 Cecil B. DeMille film), Carmen (1915 Raoul Walsh film)
By genre: The Visitor (2007 drama film), The Visitor (2007 short film)
By country: Michael (2011 Austrian film), Michael (2011 Indian film)
Personally, in the case of Wolf, I'd stick with the current page titles (genre) and def. avoid country in this case, as one of them is a co-production. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig'ing "by genre" is generally a terrible, imprecise way to do it, to the point where WP:NCTV goes to great lengths to avoid that. Diambig'ing "by format (e.g. "animated" vs. "live-action", "short film" can also work in this case) is vastly preferable, where applicable, but disambig'ing "by genre" is a pretty bad idea (e.g. "thriller" is actually a "subgenre" of "drama", so how are we even disambiguating here?!). My advice: if you can't disambig. "by year", "by country", or "by format", then the next choice should be something like "by director" – disambiguating "by genre" shouldn't even really be an option, or it should be a super-last-resort option, at best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The example "by genre" that Lugnuts brought up is also incorrect as "short film" isn't a genre and the short film could still be a drama, so the disambiguation doesn't work. The Visitor (2007 drama film) should be The Visitor (2007 feature film) to be properly unambiguous. —El Millo (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that genre is not the way to go with this. As IJB states it is imprecise. At this moment the one labeled drama has no sourced info describing it as such (or as any other genre for that matter) and the one labeled thriller includes a reference whose title is "Wolf Movie Review: Engaging psychological drama derailed by a shaky third act" and another ref that says watching it is a thrilling experience but does not ascribe the film to that genre. I have a vague memory that we used the directors name as the dab years ago but I could easily be wrong. In this case I think using the names is the best choice. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that genre isn't the best disambig to use. Director would probably be the best (or least-worst) choice for this case. Shame that the Irish-Polish film wasn't a Hungarian production, then at least it could be Hungary like the wolf... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your director examples are like that because they are both American films. Thus, they had to be taken to another level because you couldn't use "1915 American film". Just because I'm not sure why this wasn't mentiond from the getgo. But this is directly in the guidelin: "For multiple films of the same name that are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin (adjective), like Noise (2007 Australian film) and Noise (2007 American film); or contrasting descriptive adjectives, such as Heidi (2005 live-action film) and Heidi (2005 animated film) or Skin (2018 feature film) and Skin (2018 short film)." Notice how we started with country of origin, and then moved to the next disambiguation (animated vs. live-action). The next one would be akin to genre, but again we started with country of origin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole I'm probably wrong about this but I sense that guideline comes from a time when the film project was more simplistic (and I don't use that word as a negative) in its use of "country" - since then we've had discussions about the term in relation to whether "county where filming took place" or "country where the production company was based" etc, as the defining factor. I'm pretty sure the use of country in both the infobox and the lede has altered over the years. It might be worth a discussion to update the guideline you mention. My apologies if I am way off base on this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the term has had some debate over the years, but I don't think that's a problem with this guideline. We've had more issues with films and identifying a defining "genre" for the film. There are more edit wars and debates over whether a film is a comedy, drama, superhero, action, romance, etc. film than there are as to whether it is a US film versus a UK film. Genres of current films are also more fluid today than the country of origin of a film. Additionally, there are more roles to making a film than the director. Saying "Superman (1978 Richard Donner film)" makes it seem like the most important fact is that it is a Donner film and minimizes the roles of the writer, producer, etc. By saying the country as the second disambiguation (after year), the most you're going to have to worry about is whether or not there is disagreement over the country of origin, which really does not happen that much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I should add that two films with the same title in the same year doesn't occur very often so your point is fine. IMO the two Wolf films that this thread is about should be moved sooner rather than later MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The country of origin tends to be the country of the production company, not the country where filming takes place. These two films' countries aren't in question, their leads list their countr(ies) of origin. The "problem" is that one of them has dual "nationality", that's why it seeems it shouldn't be moved to distinction by country, but I see no problem with doing it. There are no length problems here, since the title is one four-letter word and the countries' names are rather short as well. Wolf (2021 Irish-Polish film) and Wolf (2021 Indian film) isn't bad at all. —El Millo (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that genre disambig is bad. Usually I'd be put off by the hyphenated dual nationality for the one but the scourge of director primacy is much worse than that, as Bignole implies, so I agree with Facu-el Millo about using nationality being the least worst option. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for fourth optional choice to disamb' by would be director. Genre is not as factual or black and white as DIRECTOR person, and genre seems interpretive or subjective to me, whereas a director would be crazy to release two films in one year under the same exact title!
-From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 01:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about language? Most readers wouldn't know the English-language film is an Irish-Polish production, while they would definitely know it's in English. Had it been a production of a single anglophone country, the countries would have been perfectly intuitive disambiguators, but readers couldn't be quite sure if the "2021 Irish-Polish film" is definitely what they're looking for upon seeing it. There are precedents, like Dracula (1931 English-language film) vs Dracula (1931 Spanish-language film), even though many of them seem to be old multiple-language versions. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason you have "English language" and "Spanish language" for Dracula is because they were both US productions by Universal in the same year. So, in that special case it made sense that you would go down further so something else that separated them out. That's more of an outlier than something that needs a rule.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RMs challenging PFILM

Information Note: Two RMs have been opened directly challenging WP:PFILM:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General conventions

I find it somewhat odd that this page doesn't have more "general" guidance on how film articles are named. There's only that small blurb at the top of the page, but it only mentions capitalization and italics. At a minimum, I think the following points should be noted:

  • Normally, we use the official title as indicated by the billing block, MPAA certificate, or copyright offices
  • We use the title used at the time of the original release (e.g. Raiders of the Lost Ark)
  • Sometimes, we use an alternative common name (e.g. Rogue One)
  • We don't use international titles (e.g. The Fate of the Furious)
  • If the article title differs from the actual title, the latter should be the first thing in the lead (e.g. Borat)

InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm thinking:
General

In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its billing block, MPAA certificate, official press releases, or government copyright agencies.

If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be the bolded term that opens the lead sentence.

Did I miss or go overboard with anything? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think this is a great idea, and the examples you came up with are stellar. If I had to nitpick, I would only suggest finding ways to improve the formatting & spacing. Having it like that line after line just strikes me as cluttered. Maybe eliminating the bullet points in front of each line of examples would be a start. We could also highlight the topic for each example to make it stand out more.
This is just spitballing, but maybe something more like this:
  • Stylized titles – It is common for films to be stylized differently in promotional materials.
Examples: Seven (1995 film), Ghostbusters (2016 film), Birdman (film)
  • Onscreen titles – It is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.
Examples: Dune (2021 film), Iron Man 3, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
  • Retroactive changes – Use the title used at the time of the film's release, disregarding retroactive title changes.
Examples: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Dark Phoenix (film), Star Wars (film)
...
Just my 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated version:

In general, article titles should use the official title of the film as indicated by its billing block, MPAA certificate, official press releases, or government copyright agencies.

If an article title differs from the film's actual title, the latter should be the bolded term that opens the lead sentence.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add this in now, seeing as there has been no opposition. As this wording documents existing and longstanding practices, I don't feel additional !votes of approval are strictly necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Special:Diff/1183755278 – How so? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article title is X and the film's actual title is Y, then it would be acceptable to open with something like: "X, theatrically released as Y, ..." or "X, officially titled Y, ..." While there may be some instances where you'd want to mention Y first, it would seem unnecessary to enforce a particular approach. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because we bold the article title, official names and alternative names. That is clearly stated in MOS:BOLDLEAD, MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Unrelated to my comment, but also relevant, this is a naming convention guideline, bolding names does not belong here and is a guideline fork. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms. I have never seen a film article's lead structured the other way round, or any article about a proper name, for that matter. Can you give an example? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borat. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That article very much does not open with "Borat, officially titled ..." InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even remember what text I removed? You wrote the bolded term that opens the lead sentence which can be understood to mean that other terms should not be bolded. If everything should be bolded, why mention it? If you actually meant to say, that the official film title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence then you should have written it like that. Either way, again, that belongs in MOS:FILM and not here. Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birdman (film) is an example of an article starting with the short name and not with its official long name[1] Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you just changed it? If an article title is a stylization rather than the official title, the stylization should of course not be the first title that opens the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ignore sources that contradict your beliefs anything works I guess. So if the Library of Congress is not good enough, how about the studio that distributed the film?[2], BFI[3] or one of film's most important film critics?[4] It's pretty easy finding important sources claiming this is the official name. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly going to be contradictions, but the billing block credits and the U.S. copyright listing are clearly the most authoritative sources. You are welcome to discuss further on that article's talk page if you wish. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant, the actual title should be the first title that opens the lead sentence. I am not calling for the other titles to not be in bold. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better if you provided an example of a situation that illustrates what you were trying to accomplish, in case we are misunderstanding. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borat. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:BOLDLEAD: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."
The article title Borat qualifies as a widely accepted name and should therefore appear first per this guideline. Birdman is a similar case. There are always exceptions, of course, but that is generally how I'd approach it, especially when the film's actual title is very long, as it is with Borat. I'm not sure we need any additional guidance here. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add that since there are multiple variations of the title Borat, the current approach in that article works fine. It's one of the few exceptions to the general guidance that the article title appears first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As I wrote above, I have never seen an article about a proper noun that does this. MOS:FIRST gives United Kingdom as an example. For films specifically, we have Borat, Rogue One, The Avengers (2012 film), Frozen II, etc. We also have NASA, Julius Caesar (play), New York City, Amazon (company), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we focus on common names (shorthand titles) vs official names (lengthier titles), it happens quite often where the common name is listed first: The Empire Strikes Back, The X-Files, Battlefield Earth, Tower of London, North Korea, and Rhode Island (where the official name isn't even mentioned until the last paragraph in the lead). I don't think there is a hard and fast rule that says you have to specify the official title first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the first three examples, the shorter title is the official name. As far as I know (and no one thus far has been able to prove otherwise), no film articles list an alternative title first before "officially known as". The intent of the wording was to document this standard practice on film articles, but if there is a desire not to "mandate" this (even though guidelines aren't mandatory), I can live with that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps my film examples weren't the best, but it does seem to come down to the sources you choose to go by. Episode V is in the official title at BOM and The Numbers, and Borat's full title is listed as an alternate title at AFI. And we definitely know official titles aren't always enforced as the first occurrence in other non-film GA and FA articles. If WP:FILM wants to recognize that as a common practice, then perhaps it would be better to place it in MOS:FILM as Gonnym suggests and take a deeper dive on the subject at WT:MOSFILM. I'm definitely not opposed to documenting a common practice if we want to ensure consistency across our film articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is a larger question to discuss at WT:FILM, which source(s) are the more authoritative when it comes to determining a film's "official" title. Personally, I think the billing block is king since it's essentially a form of credits, but maybe that's just me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Started a discussion at WT:FILM#Determining a film's official title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Proposed allowance of PDABs for films

I'd like to propose a review of the WP:PRIMARYFILM guideline, which I view as inconsistent. It makes no sense to me that films are on such a high pedestal that they can trump almost all other forms of WP:PARTIALDISAMBIGUATION (such as those for people [i.e. actors, athletes, etc.] or other mediums [i.e. music, literature, television, etc.]).

This is the case not only for clear WP:PDABPRIMARY titles such as Avatar (2009 film), Frozen (2013 film), Parasite (2019 film), Split (2016 American film) and Titanic (1997 film) but also for many WP:TWODABS between a more well-known film and a relatively obscure film that most readers frankly would not know even exists without a Wikipedia article (such as Cinderella [2015 American film] and Cinderella [2015 Indian film], Suicide Squad [2016 film] and Suicide Squad [1935 film], The Wolf of Wall Street [2013 film] and The Wolf of Wall Street [1929 film], etc.), some of which have pageview ratios of 300:1 or more. This may even include possible WP:PDABREDIRECTS (such as Mulan [live-action film] for Mulan [2020 film] rather than Mulan [2009 film]).

Please leave your thoughts below. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Partial disambiguation should if anything be disallowed everywhere else instead if you want to resolve the inconsistency. This is fine as is. Pppery (alt) (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Pppery. Additionally, I don't understand this obsession with a primary for a partial disambiguation. The articles aren't human and don't actually care if they have the "primary" for a partial disambiguated title. This is just an overall bad idea. A partial title is already disambiguated, just not enough to be actually helpful. Gonnym (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I agree that the status quo is inconsistent. The answer is greater scrutiny of WP:PDAB, not this. 162 etc. (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others above. The point of parenthetical disambiguation is to sort out all articles that have the same name. We have primary-topic guidelines to determine if one topic is far more appropriate than the other topics of the same name (meaning no consideration for the parenthetical disambiguation) to be primary. Let's say Foo is a primary topic that is not a film, and there are two secondary-topic films called Foo, one released in 2014 and one in 2024. All three topics are called Foo at the core of it. So that means the idea of "Foo (film)" as a topic name, for which "Foo (2014 film)" or "Foo (2024 film)" should be considered to be the primary topic, is false. There is no such thing as "Foo (film)" in the world. The "(film)" is Wikipedia's internal parenthetical-disambiguation labeling. On top of that, to disambiguate by release year is one of the most minimal parenthetical disambiguation approaches possible, so for film articles, there is even less need for this than disambiguating by name (which should be fine within secondary topics anyway). Editors fighting for partial-title matches are wanting to shave off four numbers and a space to declare a primary topic within a set of secondary topics. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as this will only cause greater confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The point of disambiguation is to make an article title not ambiguous. --woodensuperman 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems to me that most of the opposes here are opposing the concept of WP:PDAB rather than judging its application in relation to film articles. I personally have no strong opinion as to its validity, but the short explanation for why it exists is that it was judged that in certain cases such as Thriller (album), where the album is not the primary topic for the base name and yet is so much more prominent than other albums of that name that it was pointless to redirect people to the DAB page when the vast majority of them almost certainly wanted Michael Jackson. If that logic is sound, I see no reason why it should not be applied to this project. There are already clear examples of cases where the same logic should theoretically apply, such as Vertigo (film), which is widely viewed as one of the most important and acclaimed films of all time, to the point that despite its partially disambiguated title clearly violating this convention, a recent RM failed to get it to move to a fully disambiguated title. But even if you disagree with the reasoning for WP:PDAB, and I can see why, I would suggest that this guideline align to match that one, and meanwhile another RfC can be held to overturn that guideline if it is felt that the consensus has changed about it. That way if WP:PDAB is overturned, this guideline can use its current rule, while if it is not this one can change to conform with the rest of the English Wikipedia. I feel that either outcome would be substantially less harmful than the current situation, in which every other article title follows a set guideline except articles on films for some incomprehensible reason. Ladtrack (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this apply to subtitles?

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

June 2024 update – Proposed PDAB film criteria

Hey, guys. I have been thinking about potential criteria to allow PDABs for films. According to my proposal, a film article would be eligible for a PDAB title when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied (if more are satisfied, the eligibility would be even higher):

  1. The film article has a high pageview ratio with the other film (if WP:TWODABS) or a high combined pageview ratio if there are multiple other films. The threshold for a "high pageview ratio" would be decided by consensus.
  2. The film is part of either a film series or a film/media franchise. Examples would include Disney Princess films, Red (2010 film) and Sing (2016 American film).
  3. The Library of Congress selected the film for preservation in the United States National Film Registry as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Examples include Fantasia (1940 film), The Music Man (1962 film) and Psycho (1960 film).

Please let me know your thoughts on this proposal. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to continue to oppose this. Parenthetical disambiguation terms are internal and nonexistent in the real world. Nobody but specialists types them out. This push of sussing out a "primary topic" from within a set of secondary topics using similar parenthetical disambiguation terms amounts to shaving off a few alphanumeric characters within the term for no actual gain. Allowing this just sets up for more and more discussions about which secondary topic is more primary than others, which is a time sink. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed since before. Still oppose * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 film with two titles, IMDb calls it the devil and the deep blue sea, and uses that HTML title, and the Wikipedia article is The Book of Love

How in wiki code to disambiguate the above? I've been reading up on the how-to's but nothing fits other than creating a middling disambiguation page, a stand-alone stopping point or middle ground if you will, between the two titles- QUESTION. There's no way in wiki code for the main article which is called The Book of Love 2016 film, to just have a small banner at the top mentioning that the film has XYZ as a second working title? Thank you.
-From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 01:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant Man (film)

Just in case no one noticed, I requested The Elephant Man (film) to be moved against The Elephant Man (1982 film) since there is an overwhelming opposition to primary subtopics related to films but it was not moved. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to file a request to reopen the RM, but it looks like someone has already done so. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RM has been relisted, see Talk:The Elephant Man (film)#Requested move 19 January 2025. Editors are encouraged to comment, as concerns have been raised about the validity of this guideline. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UFILM and pageview tapering

In the WP:UFILM section, I understood the text about pageviews tapering to be dependent on the "upcoming" redirects being nominated at RfD, rather than about the 30-day waiting period. I raised this as a concern at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 29#Ferrari (upcoming film), and InfiniteNexus, who had added the pageview tapering part, suggested to rearrange the sentence. I propose this change:

−
After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) and Untitled Wikipedia film are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. When this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, in order to allow pageviews to taper off.
+
After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) and Untitled Wikipedia film are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. At least 30 days after this happens, and pageviews have tapered off, these redirects can be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Jay 💬 16:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I removed the redundant the film receives a title or wide release, which was already part of the first sentence as film receives a wide release or an official title. "This" covers it. The rephrasing also makes an assumption that 30 days is sufficient for pageviews to taper off. The onus is totally on the nominator, and not this guideline, if the redirect has been nominated at RfD, but the pageviews haven't (sufficiently, this is contextual) tapered off. Jay 💬 16:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to rearranging the pageviews bit, but oppose changing the wording from should to can or may. "Should" implies that it is a recommendation, not a requirement, and guidelines are never mandatory anyway. Per the overwhelming consensus in past RfDs and other discussions that led to UFILM, editors have determined that it is generally good practice to delete redirects of this type once they are no longer useful; the purpose of the guideline was to document this consensus, not merely present an option that is available to all redirects. Nominating to RfD isn't mandatory, but it's not merely optional either — in other words, we should generally delete these redirects, though not always, but this is not a "I guess if you want to, go ahead" situation. Exceptions are covered by the usual guideline disclaimers, IAR, and the RfD process itself (which does not result in automatic deletion). InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these changes, but may I suggest using "ought to" in place of "should"? It gets the intended message across and does not run the risk of being misinterpreted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google said: "'should' indicates something that is good or advisable to do, but not mandatory." Going with this understanding, and retaining the word "should", can we instead make the pageviews tapering part less subjective so we don't run into the usual arguments at RfD? How much tapering is a good measure - less than 10 per day? Or is it a proportion of the pre-move traffic, such as it used to be 1000 per day, and is now 100. Proportionally much lesser, but still useful to readers. Do we wait until it gets to 0, which could be years? Jay 💬 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that when a page ceases to be useful is fundamentally at least partially subjective. We can point to some bounds, e.g. fewer than 2-3 views a month for at least 2-3 months is no longer useful based on page views (but might still be for other reasons, e.g. attribution), double figure views (almost) every day is definitely still useful (although in some cases people may be looking for a different film). Between the two extremes it varies, if the page was getting hundreds of views a day but suddenly dropped to one or two every few days over the space of 1-2 days is very different to a page where views have slowly declined. A page that was getting many more hits over the weekend than during the week, that changes to 0-2 hits at day during the week but 10 or so each day over the weekend is probably still useful, while one the was fairly uniformly viewed each day that changes to only a couple of hits every now and then suggests it probably isn't useful any more.
tl;dr all of the absolute number of hits, relative number of hits, and (change in) pattern of hits is relevant; when a page ceases to be useful is subjective. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly oppose "should" or "ought", there is no requirement and should not be any encouragement (which is what both "should" and "ought" are) that these be deleted as soon as they can be - when it is appropriate to delete varies based on the individual circumstances and we should absolutely not be pushing people to delete redirects prematurely (while page views are the most common reason they are nominated for deletion too soon it is not the only one). Nomination at RfD is always optional and neither nomination nor lack of nomination should be the default. IAR should only be for uncommon situations that were not envisaged by the rule being ignored, not planned in as a normal part of the process. All the other changes are good. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of the guideline was to document the prevailing consensus of the community by recommending these redirects for deletion once they are no longer useful, as evaluated via RfD. Numerous past discussions have established strong consensus that this is indeed good practice and these redirects should be deleted 99% of the time; off the top of my head, I cannot recall a major RfD that did not result in deletion, possibly one or two edge cases. I am not surprised Thryduulf has a different perspective, as they have long been passionately opposed to the deletion of such redirects (often the lone opposition at RfDs), but I'm afraid this does not reflect the overwhelming consensus of the community. As for Jay's request for a numerical threshold, I feel we would getting into WP:CREEP territory; it would be difficult to nail down a "perfect" number that everyone can agree on; and there is currently no consensus on a specific number, so we should not arbitrarily make one up. It is best to simply use common sense, and participants at RfD will be the judge of whether pageviews qualify as "low enough" to be considered no longer useful. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to passionately oppose the deletion of redirects that are demonstrably still useful to readers, regardless of how many other people chose to harm the encyclopaedia by making it hard for readers to find the content they are looking for. I regularly !vote to delete redirects that are truly no longer useful, that this is rarer than my !votes to keep is because so many are nominated prematurely. We should neither be encouraging nor discouraging the deletion of these redirects when some arbitrary threshold (e.g. 30 days post release) is reached, rather we should permit editors who care about these redirects to nominate them when their utility has ended. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that; you've clearly articulated your point of view many times. But again, the problem is that this is not what the vast of majority of editors think. As an administrator, surely you recognize that we must abide by consensus "for the greater good" even if one strongly disagrees; to do the contrary would be an unproductive WP:DEADHORSE effort. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is I'm not seeing this consensus at a general level. I'm seeing people in favour of harming the encyclopaedia by deleting some individual redirects prematurely based on a literal reading of the guideline here, but I'm not seeing the consensus being this guidance encouraging such deletions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus emerged long before the guideline was added. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If so it should be easy to point to where this consensus to encourage deletion after an arbitrary timescale arose. I am not disputing that a consensus exists to allow deletion of these redirects when they are no longer needed, I'm disputing that there is a consensus to encourage deletion of such redirects whether they are still needed or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 30-day grace period was added precisely to discourage editors from prematurely nominating redirects that may still be useful; it does not encourage deletion of such redirects whether they are still needed or not. Again, the guideline does not say you have to nominate these redirects after 30 days, only that they shouldn't be nominated before then because it's too early. Editors are expected to use common sense before they nominate a redirect for deletion. The RfD process works — if participants evaluate the redirect and conclude that it remains of use, they will !vote to keep and the redirect won't be deleted; if they evaluate the redirect and conclude that it is no longer useful, they will !vote for deletion. If you're really picky about the wording, I would suggest rewriting the second sentence to:

No earlier than 30 days after this happens, these redirects should generally be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this refined wording as proposed. As this is a guideline, nothing is being forced to happen, these are just the utmost suggestions for what ought to happen with these redirects once they have served their purpose. Realistically speaking, once a film has released, it is no longer "upcoming", and I gotta say, almost two years after a release, chances are slim the majority of readers would be looking for such a redirect if it is not widely utilized. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Are you still planning on implementing this? @Thryduulf: Do you have any additional comments? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose "should" ("may" is appropriate word) for the reasons I gave - we should neither be encouraging nor discouraging the deletion of these redirects. Other than that it's better than the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are unable to agree on the verb (i.e. "no consensus"), the status quo is retained. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any form of improvement from the status quo will be good, and productive use of this discussion, although there is no agreement on change of verb. I'll put your version up here for a while for more views:
−
After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) and Untitled Wikipedia film are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. When this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, in order to allow pageviews to taper off.
+
After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) and Untitled Wikipedia film are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. No earlier than 30 days after this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] once they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off.
I did have similar wordings in mind, but was unable to phrase it the way you have now done. I omitted the word "generally" from your version. What does "generally" imply in this context, and how much is the intent changed if "generally" is omitted? Jay 💬 10:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added "generally" to address Thryduulf's concerns by clarifying that exceptions apply and not all redirects must be deleted. I assumed they would prefer that wording to the status quo, but they did not accept the compromise, so I'm OK if we remove it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a choice between this proposal and the status quo then this proposal wins, but it does so only with the explicit warning that it is not the best thing we can do for the project. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: I don't mean to keep nagging you, but it's been a month with no new activity; is this still happening? I would like to close the book on this, whether we implement the changes or not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping! (I'm relying on pings now as I've stopped watching my watchlist. I need to bring it down to under 1000 first.) I'll make this proposed change. Thanks! Jay 💬 04:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested participation in a dispute about a French film's English title at Talk:Bonnard, Pierre and Marthe#Title

Greetings. There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Bonnard, Pierre and Marthe#Title regarding a French film's English title.

The other editor argues that the English title should include a colon based on their interpretations of poster typography, journalist behavior, and release titles in other non-English countries. They also propose using IMDb title data as supporting evidence.

I am arguing that the title more commonly recognized by English readers (WP:NCFF) does not include a colon because English-language distributors and mainstream sources consistently name the title as Bonnard, Pierre and Marthe (comma). And that we must follow reliable English-language sources and not original research.

We are at an impasse and I request experienced editors in this area to please weigh in on the talk page. Thanks! -- Οἶδα (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Proposed updates to WP:UFILM regarding pageviews

Should the provision at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Upcoming films regarding considering recent pageviews to retain redirects with titles ending with the disambiguator "(upcoming film)" be adjusted, removed, not changed, or something else? Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few years while the section which is targeted by WP:UFILM has existed, there has been some controversy regarding assessing if a redirect should remain based on its recent pageviews. The purpose of the below options is to provide options which may alleviate issues with such discussions and hopefully make discussions more streamlined. The sentence in question to be changed/updated is the following:

"No earlier than 30 days after this (the release date of the target) happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off."

Here are what may be some options which could be the most relevant to approach this:

  • A: Update the wording to have a stronger stance again utilizing pageviews to retain these redirects, potentially utilizing wording such as:

    "No earlier than 30 days after this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use, regardless of pageviews."

  • B: Update the wording to just remove the mention to pageviews, potentially utilizing wording such as:

    "No earlier than 30 days after this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use."

  • C: Leave the wording as-is with no changes.
  • D: Replace "...pageviews have tapered off" with a more precise definition on what "pageviews" means (such as "average pageviews over a specified time period", etc.), which can be further defined in comments along with this option
  • E: Something else (since there's usually something else, please specify)

– Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • In order of preference: A, D, or B. Either we make a strong stance against the utilization of pageviews as a criteria to keep these redirects, or we be more specific and define what an adequate amount of pageviews is to consider keeping the redirect. For "D", I recommend an "average pageviews of at least 2/day during the past 30 days"; this will help narrow the definition of what is considered an acceptable amount of pageviews to prevent editors claiming that a large timeframe of any arbitrary amount of pageviews as a reason to keep a redirect by defining a specific "amount over time" standard. (May be willing to consider "average pageviews of at least 3/day during the past 60 days" as well.) If none of those options work, just remove mentioning pageviews altogether. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support C or D. Very strong oppose A, oppose B. There isn't anything wrong with the current wording other than people not understanding that a small number of page views can indicate that a redirect is still useful, so my suggestion for D would be something like "page views show no evidence of regular use for at least several weeks". Page views are by far and away the best evidence we have to determine when something is or is not useful so prohibiting using them is, well I was going to say ludicrous but that's not strong enough. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • D unless someone comes up with a good E. Strongly oppose A or B as per Thryduulf, pageviews are a very handy tool re: making sure something is still actually used, and there SHOULD remain some sort of pageviews-based qualifier. But also, I personally strongly oppose C; the current wording is extremely vague re: what "tapered off" means. As I observed back in RfD, there is a marked split between those who interpret "tapered off" as requiring there to be next to no pageviews left (i.e. Thryduulf) and those who interpret "tapered off" as meaning there are simply less pageviews than before (i.e. Steel). Personally, I don't think it makes sense to use the "less but not necessarily zero" version-- this is because there is still a potential use case for UFILM redirects after a film releases beyond simple incoming links-- and that would be for those readers that don't yet know that the film has actually released, who might end up finding out that the film's released from the Wikipedia page. Given that "less but not necessarily zero" would be mathematically hit for practically EVERY UFILM redirect near immediately as soon as the film/album/ect releases, that would completely screw over any readers whom would have been served by this use case.
    To that end, a "next to no pageviews left"-esque wording would be preferable-- I personally think Thryduulf's version ("page views show no evidence of regular use for at least several weeks") works, but if a more exact version is preferred, something akin to Steel's would function well, though I'd use the 3/day for 60 days wording (i.e. "page views are below an average of 3/day during the past 60 days"). 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, someone HAS come up with a REALLY good E, and that someone is user:Tamzin below. Said E is to create a soft redirect template that looks like the following:
    This is a deprecated redirect to {Media title}, a {Format} that {released/given a title} in {Year}. Because {Media title} is no longer {upcoming/untitled}, this redirect is set to be deleted on {Date that is about 1 month(?) from when it was released/titled}. If a link sent you here, please update that link. If there is an exceptional reason not to delete this redirect or to delay deletion, please start a discussion at WP:RFD .
    This solves pretty much every issue we have with the current UFILM. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I think that's a good improvement on what I suggested below. For time period, I'd suggest 45 days, based on the general principle that automatic deletion should run a bit slower than manual tagging (cf. WP:U6 and some file deletion criteria), and thus adding 50% to the current advisory window. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. Page view stats are not a reliable indicator of usefulness, so they should not be referenced either way. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue with this guideline as written is its focus on the pageviews without a clear explanation of what "of use" really means in this context. Realistically, no one is going to intentionally search for "X (upcoming film)", so there are only two ways readers are arriving at these redirects: 1) from incoming links that haven't been updated to the new title, and 2) by typing in "X" and seeing "X (upcoming film)" as a suggestion. In the latter case, consider that the new article title (ex. "X (2023 film)") will also appear as a suggestion. This means that 1) the old redirect is redundant and 2) if readers are intentionally choosing it over the new title, it is highly likely they are looking for a sequel (especially 2+ years out). Regardless of pageviews, a redirect is only "of use" if it is actually useful to the reader (and not misleading, which WP:UFILM already mentions as the primary reason why these should deleted at all). If a redirect is misleading readers, it is doubtful the pageviews will ever "taper off" to near zero, making the current language of this guideline self-contradictory. I propose an Option E that removes the mention of pageviews and leaves only the 30-day waiting period amd the requirement to update all incoming links: No earlier than 30 days after this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off. Ensure that all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated prior to nominating the redirects at RfD. Oppose the other options as insufficent to address the issue of pageviews from viewers who are being mislead into thinking there is another film coming out. I2Overcome talk 00:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all incoming links are able to be updated. J947 ‡ edits 00:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How much of this traffic is really coming from links on external sites vs. internal searches? Is there any way to tell? I2Overcome talk 00:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @I2Overcome: this website – ahrefs . com/backlink-checker – (it's blacklisted, so remove the spaces) is occasionally helpful for identifying external sites.
    With regard to your point about internal searches, let's take the redirect The Father (upcoming film) → The Father (2020 film). With Vector 2022, if you type in "The Father (u" into the search bar on an article, only The Father (2020 film) will show up in the dropdown search results. The redirect is hidden. So this would not appear to be how readers are accessing these redirects. Note that if the redirect is at RfD, it does show up in the search results so that can confuse things. Also note that if the reader is instead searching from the Special:Search page (less likely), then the redirect does show up, contrary to decades-old demands that it should not or have an option not to show up via redirect categories. However, this is much less likely to explain the pageviews, given it relies on the reader making an unusual click on this page. J947 ‡ edits 03:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right; for some reason I was thinking that redirects would show up in search, but they don’t unless they’re at RfD. Since that’s the case, it’s actually unlikely that readers are arriving at these redirects from search. I2Overcome talk 03:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to note that external sites and internal search-box results aren't the only methods of getting to a link. You also have people typing in queries to the address bar, which doesn't interact with the drop-down autocomplete at all. (And I'm fairly certain specific browsers, if set to treat Wikipedia as a search engine, will do that when told to search Wikipedia for a given query.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be an alternative way to address the "B" option since rewriting the guideline in the proposed manner could be considered a WP:CSD, and there's a much higher bar than this to establish such a thing ... such a high bar that I wouldn't even consider proposing something like that. Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or refine D per Thryduulf's reasoning above. I must admit I have no memory of participating in the previous discussion, but I've had a few interactions with Thryduulf at RfD during some of my phases of overzealous redirect nomination and I think his position is the most consistent and clear by helping readers get to where they are trying to go. Also, just for bookkeeping, the previous (second) discussion [1] has a broken link to the first discussion, which I've provided here [2] if that's helpful. TNstingray (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or A. Pageviews are like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Typing "Foo (upcoming... )" in to the Search box is going to produce a result if the redirect exists and so generate a pageview of what is essentially a misleading redirect. If the redirect doesn't exist, it obviously won't lead to a pageview, because the Searcher will find "Foo" or "Foo (film)" or "Foo (2026 film)" and get to where they want to be. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost none of that is actually relevant - firstly, not everybody uses the internal search engine or other methods with suggestions (e.g. following links from external websites, searching in the URL bar, etc). Secondly, given that "(upcoming ..." appears after the title of whatever it is, those who are using the search engine will find the non-upcoming title before the upcoming one. Thirdly, search suggestions and search result previews are not counted as human views in the page view statistics, only people actually using the redirect are counted.
    Together this means that if you aren't specifically looking for or following a link to a redirect with "(upcoming)" in the title the only reason you would use it is because you previously visited it at that title and don't know the new one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • E/C. Per the discussion below, the text should explicitly start the clock when all planned releases have occured, since those can be staggered. Otherwise, 30 days seems like a reasonable time to assess when views have fallen and the utility becomes more costly than cheap. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    30 days is the earliest reasonable time to see assess whether the redirect is still useful, but not as a limit. I've seen examples where the utility clearly ended in about a week, and others that were clearly still useful after two years. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, any outcome should not have a hard delete by without assessing usefulness. I think the proposal by I2Overcome below that seems okay technically removes the limit altogether in favour of usefulness. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tamzin's E per Lunam. These should require active effort to keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B When a page is nominated for deletion, all relevant details are merged with the redirect. I don't see any issue with nominating a page for deletion. A nomination still requires discussion and consensus, so that would be useful here regardless. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 17:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Steel1943, but C. The current wording is deliberately noncommittal because (1) editors could not agree on a definitive criteria for when these redirects should always be deleted, resulting in the proposed CSD criterion being rejected and leading to this guideline as a "middle-of-the-road" compromise; and (2) setting specific numerical benchmarks such as "how many pageviews" and "how many days" is not only very difficult (to be determined, to be followed, and to be enforced) but also runs the risk of WP:CREEP, as PAGs are intended to recommend guiding principles to follow rather than creating "rules" to be followed. I also think this RfC is framed a little misleadingly, because the proposed change would not only change the wording but also change the meaning of the guideline: currently, the guideline states that redirects should be deleted when they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off — this is the only condition, with 30 days cited as a minimum breathing room. Changing this to "redirects should be deleted after 30 days, period" is a totally different directive and would require new consensus; the "30 days" provision was added because there was (rough) consensus that it was a reasonable amount of time where the condition that they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off will most likely have been met. I haven't read the discussion below in full as I'm still catching up on what I've missed during the past few weeks, but I've skimmed it, and if there is new consensus that pageviews should not prevent a redirect from being deleted, I will gladly throw my support behind that — but then I will raise the question of why there shouldn't just be a CSD criterion, as proposed several years back. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will raise the question of why there shouldn't just be a CSD criterion, as proposed several years back because nothing has changed since several years back. Determining when a redirect has ceased to be useful cannot be reliably reduced to an objective number count. It's a combination of both the absolute and relative number of page views, pattern of page views and other factors (e.g. is there discussion of a sequel at the target or elsewhere? Was the film released at (approximately) the same time everywhere? Are there other upcoming films with (approximately) this name? etc). Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked why there shouldn't just be a CSD criterion if there is new consensus that pageviews should not prevent a redirect from being deleted, which is what some editors have suggested in the discussion below. Deletion without consideration of pageviews is also what this RfC is proposing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But page views are not, and have never been, the only consideration. The current consensus is that three criteria must be met before they can be considered for deletion:
    • At least 30 days since the film was released
    • The redirect is no longer useful
    • Page views have tapered off
    There isn't a consensus that page views should be removed from consideration, but even if there were that wouldn't make the determination of utility objective. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@J947, Tavix, and InfiniteNexus: Due to the low participation in this discussion after a week and since there probably needs to be a consensus for this since this issue is debated quite a bit at RfD, pinging editors who I recall have had stances on this in the past in all sides to inquire additional participation. (It's been a while since this guideline was established, so I cannot recall anyone else at the moment; if others I am not recalling need to be pinged, no quarrel from me.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the premise of this RfC. The wording is perfectly clear: redirects that receive use should be retained until they don't (after at least 30 days of confirmation of that fact). I don't know whether that reflects consensus, but I do know it cannot be reasonably interpreted from my standpoint of a participant at RfD in any other way. There is no need for an arbitrary pageview threshold. No other particular class of redirects has that. That's what RfD is to determine.
I would rather if an RfC on this matter would focus on the subject of why these redirects are used so much – more than most redirects left behind from moves – and how that use indicates whether these redirects are helpful or unhelpful. Despite slavishly following the text of UFILM in recent RfDs, I am not convinced that these redirects don't often lead readers astray. For more information, this discussion is a good starting point. J947 ‡ edits 23:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All I got to say to that is ... if the guidance was clear, it would not be such a repetitively contentious topic on RfD. And to answer the question of "why [are] these redirects are used so much...": Provided the respective redirects do not have any incoming links in Wikipedia, the answer is probably with 99% certainty to be external links on third-party web sites that do not get updated, which we do not have control over ... and the reason why I did not put this concern in any focus in this RfC since clarifying the definition of "pageviews" in theory encompasses that concern. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no words. Why would you crusade to delete these redirects if you were so confident they help readers who click on external links? The core Good Internet Principle of cool URIs don't change is practically encoded into redirect policy. J947 ‡ edits 00:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm doing at all, and such a claim is in my mind a theoretic stance (and a bit of a strawman) that goes above and beyond how Wikipedia can help its readers but rather maintain the internet at large, and that's not why I'm here as I don't run or maintain the whole internet. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As goals, "maintaining the Internet" and "helping readers navigate" are one and the same. The people who click on those links are, by definition, readers. Shockingly, that's why the guideline to help readers navigate emphasises maintaining the Internet. I think you should be familiar with it by now! Why do you want these redirects with lots of views deleted? J947 ‡ edits 00:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not convinced there’s actually that much traffic coming in from external links vs. misleading internal search suggestions, but I’m not aware of any way to know for sure. I2Overcome talk 00:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why you would think I am claiming there is. J947 ‡ edits 00:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I found the 2023 discussion in the archives that was at least partly responsible for the current text. The following editors were pinged to and/or participated in that discussion and haven't been pinged to or participated in this one: @A7V2, BD2412, Buidhe, Cryptic, Indagate, Jclemens, Jontesta, Kusma, Mellohi!, MikeAllen, Oiyarbepsy, Pppery, Shhhnotsoloud, StarTrekker, TNstingray, Tamzin, Tavix, and ValarianB: Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Thryduulf! (But ... I did ping Tavix already 😁) Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Imma ping this Tavix fella to make sure he knows about this! -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted that I'd forgotten to remove Tavix from my list right after hitting save, but I don't think there is a way to undo a ping ("fire and forget" I think I heard it described as) so just rolled with it! Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @BDD, @Myceteae, @Lenticel, and @Trailblazer101 as having commented on a significant number of these upcoming film redirects. I2Overcome talk 00:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that Jay initiated a UFILM-related discussion in a previous section here, so pinging them as well. Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The standard that, by default, we keep titles that might be linked to from off-wiki is fundamental to all the redirect speedy deletion criteria, and to no few of the other speedy criteria as well. So the idea that we should delete these while they're still getting nontrivial pageviews is kind of alien to me. If the pink "this page was previously deleted" box permanently showed up to all users, not just logged-in ones, and if the deletion logs consistently either included the redirect's previous target or pointed to an RFD that did, I might think differently. —Cryptic 01:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'm a librarian, and I tend to think of redirects like reference desk encounters (we call them reference interviews in the biz). I tend to think a reader searching for "Foo (upcoming film)" should be taken at their word, as though they asked, "Can you tell me about an upcoming film named Foo?" Usually, we can't, because there is no such film. When I think of it this way, these redirects seem almost uniformly harmful, diminishing our credibility by essentially offering information on nonexistent topics.
That's a narrow way of viewing it, though. What if the "patron" query were instead, "Can you tell me about the film Foo? I'm not sure if it's come out yet." Great! We can say, "Oh yes, it actually came out a few months ago. Here's the information you were looking for."
Sadly, in most cases, I know of no way of telling which category a reader falls into of these two options. In recent discussions, I've noted superhero films as one type where I lean more strongly towards the former category; I suppose I'd lean more strongly towards the latter category for very unique names, not used by a previous film and unlikely to be used by a future one.
I am, generally, all for a WP:readers first mentality. But that doesn't mean editor time isn't valuable. --BDD (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think THIS-- "Can you tell me about the film Foo? I'm not sure if it's come out yet" vs "Can you tell me about an upcoming film named Foo?"-- is the knot to untangle here.
The opinion championed by user:Steel1943, user:I2Overcome, User:Tavix, et al-- "Pageviews in this circumstance are not a helpful metric here"-- makes the most sense if you come at the question as if Foo (upcoming film) meant "Can you tell me about an upcoming film named Foo?". In that circumstance, pageviews aren't a metric of how many people we've helped, but how many people we've confused and harmed-- because Foo is no longer an upcoming film (because it released), the redirect is, in essence, wrong. Thus, we need to come at this from the angle of "this is a redirect that has no target anymore", and should delete regardless of pageviews. Support for this view is even baked into WP:UFILM's text-- After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film) and Untitled Wikipedia film are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers...
The opinion championed by user:Cryptic, user:J947, user:Thryduulf, et al-- "Pageviews in this circumstance are the most important metric here"-- makes the most sense if you come at the question as if Foo (upcoming film) meant "Can you tell me about a film named Foo? I'm not sure if it's come out yet". In that circumstance, pageviews are a GREAT metric, because they tell us how many people still don't know that Foo has come out yet, and are thus learning that Foo came out from Foo's Wikipedia page. The reader(s) learning something being the entire point of an encyclopedia, this is Exactly What We Want, and thus we need to keep the redirect for as long as it gets useful traffic. Support for this view is ALSO baked into UFILM's text, in the instructions for when to delete-- No earlier than 30 days after this happens, these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion once they are no longer of use and pageviews have tapered off. The qualifiers and timeframe make little sense here WITHOUT this interpretation-- if we ONLY went with the former interpretation, we would want to delete these redirects the moment the film released/was titled, not to wait 30 days, and we wouldn't care if the redirect was "of use" or not 'cause we'd have already established it was harmful.
What we need to settle on, is which of these two interpretations we need to cater to, or if we cater to both, what sort of balancing act between the two we need to strike. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other question that needs answering is whether someone searching for "foo (upcoming film)" is actually going to be confused or mislead if they are taken to "Foo (year film)"? If there is a different film that is upcoming then probably, but in that circumstance we'd want to retarget the redirect and not delete, so isn't really relevant here. If they are asking the "I'm not sure if it's come out yet" question then very obviously the answer is that they won't be confused or mislead. That leaves only those people asking the other question identified above, and while they won't be helped by the redirect I'm not certain they will be harmed either. Putting this all together I'm seeing no downsides to keeping a redirect while it is being used but plenty of downsides to deleting it during that time. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly in the same boat as you, Thryduulf. If I typed in "Foo (upcoming film)" and was taken instead to a page about a film that'd been released, my first thought wouldn't be confusion, it'd be trying to rationalize what just happened-- and that rationalization is pretty easy. "Oh, so it released".
Granted, that rationalization CAN get less *rational*, depending on circumstances. Say it's a 5-year-old movie-- I could be thinking about a possible sequel/remake/remaster/ect that Wikipedia hasn't thought notable yet. In such a scenario, I *could* get misled into thinking the old movie page IS talking about the new movie. But that's a case by case basis and I don't think UFILM would be-- or should be-- equipped for that level of fine-grained harm analysis. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've clarified this a bit in my !vote above, but the reason UFILM reflects both of these "views" is that it was a compromise wording. There was a general consensus that these redirects are not useful and should be deleted, but some pushback (primarily from Thryduulf and their sympathizers) that it is harmful to do so if the redirect continues to actively receive pageviews, so we should at least wait for there to be negligible pageviews. "How low is enough" seems to be the number-one question posed in these RfDs, and as we can see, there is no consensus, so UFILM does not attempt to invent one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to agree with deletion of these redirects as a general principal. "Upcoming" for a thing that is not upcoming is an error. If incoming links generate pageviews, those incoming links should be fixed. BD2412 T 04:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'd like to replace them all with a special system: a soft redirect template that would say something like This is a deprecated redirect to {{{page}}}. Because {{{page}}} is no longer upcoming, this redirect will be deleted on {{{date}}}. If a link sent you here, please update that link. If there is an exceptional reason to not delete this redirect or to delay deletion, please start a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. The default outcome at RfD would be to delete; specifying a new deletion date would also be a valid outcome. I think this would solve the dilemma @BDD mentioned: People who are looking for the nonexistent upcoming film will be told it's nonexistent, and people who meant the now-released film will be apprised of its release. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 12:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this soft redirect template idea is a good idea. Perhaps we set the default date at say, 1 month? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While most of that idea is good, setting a date for deletion is absolutely not. Not everybody has control over the links that sent them there (so perhaps "please update the link or report that it needs updating ") and we have no knowledge of how long it will take before people stop being sent to the link. Something like "The redirect will be deleted in due course" would be far better - there is no deadline after all. This template will likely shorten the time post-release the redirect is useful, but unless and until we have actual data that redirects that use it are always unused after a given time then it will not eliminate the need to evaluate these redirects individually. Explicitly stating what the new title in addition to the redirect target will also be of benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, with the modifications suggested by Thryduulf. Of course, someone would have to remember to actually add the soft redirect template after moving the page. I propose that it read: This is a deprecated redirect to {{{page}}}, which has been released and therefore is no longer upcoming. If a link sent you here, please update that link or report that it needs updating. If this redirect is no longer being used, please nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I2Overcome talk 20:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like Tamzin's idea and I2Overcome's wording tweak above. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could probably directly link "being used" to the pageviews tool for the redirect page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike regular redirects, soft redirects show up on the Vector 2022 search dropdown. They also show up on external search engine results, again unlike regular redirects. (Take AFAICR as an example.) I fear this solution would (1) inhibit Search and (2) result in many readers being forced to make multiple clicks. Furthermore, when deleted, the page will still appear cached in Google results for a short period of time – an undesirable red link making it harder still for the reader to navigate to their destination. J947 ‡ edits 21:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the biggest issue. Currently, assuming there is no ambiguity about the target, Vector 2022 search correctly points users to the target, but having both in the dropdown would lead to the misconception that there are two films. One solution might be to have the template automatically add a short description, which would show in the Vector 2022 search drop down, that would clarify the status of the film (e.g. "Soft redirect to a now released film"). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This would also require a smart bot or extra manual maintenance. For much of its existence, the redirect XXX (upcoming film) points to an article for a film that is still upcoming. Release dates are not simple either – they often occur over a period of months. Is it the the start or end of that period when the countdown starts? J947 ‡ edits 21:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the countdown would start whenever an editor finds the redirect and puts the template on it? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann I think you misunderstood J947's question - many films do not have a single global release date but different ones in different territories. One of my earliest internet memories is chatting with someone in the United States and someone in Switzerland at about the time that Independence Day (1996 film) was released in the UK, which IMDB tells me was 9 August. The American noted that it came out there on 4 July while it was over a month until it was scheduled to come out in Switzerland (IMDB says September 27 for Switzerland and 9 December for Japan). What should we count as the release date for the purposes of this template: 4 July, 29 August (last major English-speaking country), 9 December or some other date?
This has also made me realise that different release dates might be the reason some (upcoming) redirects get longer tails than others - a film that is already released in the United States might still be upcoming in South Africa. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's less that I misunderstood the question, and more that I didn't read the post fully; for that, I apologize. And yes- in the case of a staggered release date, I'd say that the redirect should stand until the film or other piece of media releases in all planned locales.
Even if we DON'T use the soft redirect model, staggered release dates need to be something noted by UFILM regardless; this eventuality almost certainly results in (upcoming) redirects that have lives beyond when the piece of media comes out in its country of origin. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tamzin's proposal, because we would be accommodating a very small number of readers who continue to find these redirects helpful even after enough time has passed. This would only create unnecessary work for editors and take up unnecessary real estate in Wikipedia's servers ("redirects are cheap", I know, whatever). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to defining a specific pageviews criterion (views/day or /month for a certain period of time). I don't think forbidding reference to pageviews or removing its mention makes much sense. It is certainly one way to assess whether something is "in use" which is not quite the same as "of use" but untangling pageviews from usefulness is a contentions issue at RFD. I agree with BDD's characterization of the issue. I tend to see these as not useful, and even harmful, when they mislead, confuse, surprise, or frustrate readers by taking them to a film that is not "upcoming". But I acknowledge that the reader's expectation is unclear here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to explain to me the problem of having the upcoming film page up until pageviews are zero. I'm not seeing the issue here except someone just wanting to tidy things up, like a mom putting their kid's cup in the dishwasher and the kid coming into the kitchen 30 minutes later saying, "Hey, I was still using that." TBF, I tried to gather the highlights of the argument, but overall WP:TLDR. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 16:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple. A redirect of the form "Foo (upcoming film)" suggests Wikipedia has information for readers about a film called Foo which has not been released. That typically becomes false the moment the page is renamed, i.e., because the film is no longer "upcoming". The question is how long to retain such a redirect notwithstanding its incorrect implication. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question then: is standard practice to have the link Foo (upcoming film) redirect to the actual film Foo once the film is released? Or for readers to go to the upcoming film link and that page is updated to read "Foo was in production x-x and was officially released on x date," with an internal link to the official Foo page? OR something else entirely? pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice is a redirect, yes, automatically created when the page is moved to a new title with the release date. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Typically Foo (upcoming film) is a redirect to Foo, the article about the actual film titled Foo. These become a burden to maintain when there is a rumored or announced sequel, Foo II, and the redirect has been in place for years. If Foo (upcoming film) was created in 2022 and Foo was released in 2023 but there is now chatter online about a sequel, in 2026 the redirect is now confusing. Sometimes it's easy to retarget if the sequel is well covered in an article section but that's not always the case. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, BDD is correct. Typically these are created first as a title to a film without a confirmed release date or title and then the redirect is created when the article is renamed after the film's name and release date are confirmed.
—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm it's a pretty niche scenario that this situation would be potentially confusing. And I suppose I believe readers get where they want to go after a little article hopping. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 17:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Autopsy naming discussion

There is a discussion about the setup for the articles Alien Autopsy (1995 film) and Alien Autopsy (2006 film). The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Alien Autopsy (1995 film) § 2026 revisit. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)