Talk:A Room with a View (2007 film)

Not a series
This is a TV movie - can someone pls make the necessary changes? Amo 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved. Silkenhosen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. The opponent of this move has good arguments but it is hard to get around the exact language of WP:NCF. This is a case where neither film is the primary topic, so date-based disambiguation appears to be required. If anyone thinks the current NCF is misguided, they are free to propose a change to the guideline. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

– The 2007 version is just a television movie, but calling it a "film" instead of "TV film" wouldn't hurt, unless there is more than one version of the same year. George Ho (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A Room with a View (2007 TV drama) → A Room with a View (2007 film)
 * A Room with a View (film) → A Room with a View (1985 film)

And I thought that common sense would overcome usage of "(film)" if there is more than one film of the same name. By the way, I've done these requests, so you can go to any of them. --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, the more correct disambiguation would be A Room with a View (television film), keeping the title A Room with a View (film) intact. Cavarrone (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've boldy changed minor rule about television films in WP:NC-TV a while ago. Also, "(film)" is no longer unambiguous to me. Precision should not be excessive, and "(television film)" is too precisive, so "(TV film)" isn't that bad. Year without extra precision is fine for me, and readers will get that the film was first either broadcast on TV or distributed to theatres. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, A Room with a View (TV film) would be fine for me. Cavarrone (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found examples: A Raisin in the Sun (1961 film) and A Raisin in the Sun (2008 film), Steel Magnolias and Steel Magnolias (2012 film), etc. They don't have to be either theatrical or television, and I think that "year film" is enough disambiguator as is. --George Ho (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As an alternative I can even support a move to A Room with a View (2007 film), but A Room with a View (film) should stay as it is... we can add the usual disambiguation tag in the lead of the article ("For the 2007 television film, see A Room with a View (2007 film)"). I strongly oppose the moving A Room with a View (film) → A Room with a View (1985 film), this 2007 version is rather obscure and the James Ivory film is clearly the primary topic here. Cavarrone (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * However, per WP:NCF, "Psycho (film)" was moved back to "Psycho (1960 film)", and "Independence Day (film)" moved back to "Independence Day (1996 film)". Other people would argue that "(film)" is not unambiguous enough if there is more than one film of the same name, as they did in these precedents. --George Ho (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We have also Brazil (film) and Brazil (1944 film), Licence to Kill and License to Kill (1984 film), The Champ and The Champ (1979 film), Room at the Top and Room at the Top (TV film), See No Evil (film) and See No Evil (1971 film)... and hundreds of other precedents in which the most notable film has a priority above other films. When the primary topic is highly notable, and the secondary topic is rather unknown, our readers are better served being redirected to the primary topic and eventually informed through a template about the other topics with the same name. That's also the reason for which we have a Richard Harris page (not Richard Harris actor) even having a Richard Harris (prospector) and a Richard Harris (politician). Just common sense. Cavarrone (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Recently, I learned that precision could overcome criteria of primacy. I will immediately request moving them. In fact, let's stick to the main topic here, while I'll do others. --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and I will oppose most of them. You offered some examples, I replied with others, an there are literally hundreds of them. About "precision could overcome criteria of primacy", if you want precision, precision is A Room with a View (TV film). Both primacy and precision criteria (and common sense, too) suggest keeping A Room with a View (film) where it is. Cavarrone (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, even if the relevant policies (primacy and precision) suggest keeping A Room with a View (film), you are suggesting to move the page just on the basis of your interpretation of common sense? Interisting, but unconvincing. Cavarrone (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh... not just common sense... also the guideline about titling a film. Under that, a film is simply disambiguated by year. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...interisting point... and if you care to read the section "Between films of the same name", you'll read If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Wikipedia, compare all film and non-film topics and determine which one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. And a little below, among the cited examples, "Miracle on 34th Street and Miracle on 34th Street (1994 film)". Here we are. Cavarrone (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Statistics is less reliable for films of a similar name disambiguated by parenthesis disambiguation only if a primary topic not disambiguated by parenthesis is NOT a film. Since neither film is primary, and the primary topic of A Room with a View is the very century-old novel, I'm inclined to say that statistics won't help overcome disambiguation-by-year rule on films. I'm reluctant to re-publish statistics for both versions because they are disambiguated by parenthesis disambiguation. Numbers of "Psycho (1960 film)" is higher than "Psycho (1998 film)", but that did not stop the film from becoming disambiguated by year. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per the naming conventions for films. The only primary topic here is the novel A Room with a View. All other topics are secondary topics that require some form of disambiguation. Since we have two films that share the same title, the naming conventions say to disambiguate by release year. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Guidance needed - Naming conventions (television) says "For Television films whose names conflict with other films, use (year TV film), where year corresponds to the year in which the film first aired on TV (see Naming conventions (films))" ... is the edit history on both guidelines stable? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that rule is well-intended for two films of the same name that were released on the same year. For example, Emma (1996 TV film). In this case, that would be extra precision. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.