Talk:Uncut Gems (soundtrack)

Requested move 15 January 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Uncut Gems (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) → Uncut Gems (soundtrack) – Per WP:ALBUMDAB (Use either "(soundtrack)" or the full name of a soundtrack for soundtrack albums). For similar cases, see Good Time (soundtrack) and Berberian Sound Studio (soundtrack). 153.169.21.212 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Support as proposed. -- Netoholic @ 12:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: from reading the article and its sources, it would seem the name of the album is actually "Uncut Gems (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)". If that is the case, per the section you quoted or the full name of a soundtrack and per WP:NATURALDAB, the current title would be correct. --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination, but would also support Uncut Gems: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack or, without the colon, Uncut Gems Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, per album cover. Oppose retention of current parenthesized form, Uncut Gems (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack), since such form of the main title header indicates that the title is simply Uncut Gems and "(Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)" is the parenthetical qualifier intended to disambiguate it from some other "Uncut Gems" title and, when mentioned within text, the current title is meant to be piped as Uncut Gems (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)|Uncut Gems, rather than appearing as full title. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and oppose Roman Spinner's alternatives per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Neither of the excessively long versions are the most common name referring to this work; it's just what is used as "official", mostly at retail sites and in other works drawing on databases of intellectual property products. Nor is there any kind of principle that a work with a subtitle (especially simply a descriptive one) has to be titled at Wikipedia with such verbiage, anyway. (Otherwise most of our articles on Victorian-era books would have long page names!) However, all these redlinks above do need to exist as redirects, since they are non-rarely attested. And Roman is correct that whoever named this originally was confused about what parenthetical disambiguations are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:40, 17 January 2020 (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.