Talk:Sex Tape (film)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no clear consensus to move the page to the base title, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sex Tape (film) → Sex Tape – At the present time, Sex Tape and Sex tape redirect to Amateur pornography. I propose that Sex Tape (film) be moved to Sex Tape per WP:DIFFCAPS. Also, even though Wikipedia is not censored, it may be wise to give readers the option to arrive at the film instead of the pornography article when typing "Tape" with a capital "T". Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the subject of the film is amateur pron and its implications due to accidental release of footage, so I don't think readers will be astonished if they end up at the pron article. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a deliberate misspelling, since I think a bot will tag the comment otherwise. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with caps leading to film or dab , but oppose removal of (film). In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sex Tape redirecting to Sex tape (disambiguation) could be a viable option as well. Steel1943  (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily support redirecting Sex Tape to Sex tape (disambiguation) since there are no other titles currently on the disambiguation page that utilize the same capitalization and spacing. If the film is to be moved to the ambiguous title, then the hatnote currently on the article can be updated to include a link to the disambiguation page, especially given that the About hatnote on the film article already contains a note stating that it is about the film. Steel1943  (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mm, true. Would keeping (film) be acceptable? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this about the film starring Jason Segal and Cameron Diaz. If so, how about: Sex Tape (Film Starring Cameron Diaz and Jason Segal) Pishpososhpish (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The title that you have suggested is over-disambiguation. The point of disambiguation in a title, per Wikipedia standards, is to be as ambiguous as possible while preventing any sort of confusion with any other similarly-named articles. Please see Disambiguation for more information. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Steel1943  (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral, leaning towards oppose on the idea of leaving the article at its current title and then having Sex Tape redirecting to it. The reason I state this is because I'm not the biggest fan of having an ambiguous title redirect to a disambiguated version of itself. To show what I mean by this, if you idea were to happen, the hatnote that is currently on Sex Tape (film) would have to be changed to something like this: "'Sex Tape' redirects here. For other uses, see Sex Tape (disambiguation)." ...I just personally find that type of distinction rather odd, when the hatnote could actually appear something like this: "This article is about the 2014 American comedy film. For other uses, see Sex Tape (disambiguation)." ...Which, to me, just looks more natural. (Note: That fact that I didn't include the Sx Tape link doesn't mean that I don't believe that it should remain in the hatnote; I'm just providing these examples to show the distinction between the two styles of hatnote without the differently-named article causing a distraction.) However, as a caveat, I don't want my lack of desire for the title to remain where it is to cause this discussion to be closed to "no consensus"; I feel that Sex Tape still targeting Amateur pornography is a disservice to our readers, so I'd rather your proposal happen than nothing happening. Steel1943  (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Capitals really aren't enough to disambiguate in most cases. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask you the following question so I can better understand your reasoning: How does the situation with Politically incorrect vs. Politically Incorrect differ from this one? Steel1943  (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple answer. It doesn't. One bad name doesn't justify another. My opinion would be exactly the same if there was a RM discussion on that article too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh, support as proposed per WP:DIFFCAPS. Which is, sigh, policy. Red Slash 02:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, if it's policy then it must be dogmatically applied to anything and everything without regard to common sense! Sigh! In any case, you appear to have entirely missed the second paragraph of that section; a read of that may be a good idea. There is no dogma on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm kinda familiar with that paragraph. Although I definitely regret how I worded my support !vote, my "sigh"s were genuinely not meant as a slam against you or any other opposer. I actually am not a huge fan of WP:DIFFCAPS, despite having written most of it, and my "sighs" were related to the very idea of DIFFCAPS. I see how that could have been interpreted as a slam on you or on other opposers, and I apologize for that, Necrothesp. Anyway, this is policy because it is common practice. Practice determines policy, but since we split up (say) Red Meat from Red meat, I can see how this title would logically follow. This seems more like a Red Meat / red meat scenario than it does Friendly Fire / friendly fire, which was the impetus (I believe) for me to write that paragraph. Red Slash 01:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. It's unlikely many readers will type in or click on the capitalized title "Sex Tape" looking for anything else covered by an article; those who do can find it easily by the hat link to the disambiguation page.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:12, 25 September 2014 (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.

Product placement?
The film is full of Apple products. Does anybody have information about a deal between Apple and the filmmakers. Cristiklein (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)