Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

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

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)
 * Is and  too bad? —El Millo (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124;Talk 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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&#124;Talk 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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&#124;Talk 18:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. and  isn't bad at all. —El Millo (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 implies, so I agree with  about using nationality being the least worst option. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

When was WP:PRIMARYFILM added to the page?
There can be no such thing. We have an editor now at WP:RM undiscussed moves here arguing on the basis of this shortcut that there is such a thing as primary film rather than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This shortcut should be removed from page and the shortcut deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing the technical shortcut or the content it leads to? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The shortcut, it suggests that there is such a thing as primary film, there is not. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a shortcut to this section of the MOS is useful. The section simply stipulates how to disambiguate film titles when the film is not the primary topic. The editor at that discussion quoting this guideline is not making the case that there is a "primary film", they are correctly opposing the move on the grounds that MOS:FILM does not do partial disambiguation. The nominator of the move is the one incorrectly arguing that there is a "primary film", but he is not quoting this guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So what is the point of a guideline link to a guideline that (correctly) says the opposite? Or maybe that is the point. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Formerly untitled/upcoming media
After a months-long discussion at, there was no consensus to create a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" that point to creative works no longer untitled or upcoming, despite clear consensus from past RfD discussions that these redirects should be deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). As an alternate proposal, I suggest the following be added to WP:NCFILM, which can then be referenced in future RfD discussions: Once again pinging participants of the previous discussion:. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's fine. Perhaps provide a link to the relevant discussions. BD2412  T 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your perseverance . The text looks good to me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is sorely needed.★Trekker (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is fine guidance for now. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As guidance, its not bad but "preferably after all incoming links in the mainspace have been updated" is not strong enough - all incomming mainspace links must be retargetted before any nomination, and there needs to be a delay between the article being moved and the redirect being nominated for deletion to ensure that as many people as possible are able to find the article at the new location (this is especially important when the new title takes any form of disambiguation). There should also be a sanity check in there to ensure that, as far as possible, people are looking for the article at the new rather than old title. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to make those objections in the RfD discussions itself, as you have done so in the past (to little success, I might add). The guideline should simply reflect the consensus on what to do with these redirects, which is deletion. Also, it isn't a requirement to clear all incoming links before nominating a redirect to RfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * indeed it is not because it is not the correct thing to do in all circumstances. It is however something that needs to be done for all of these types of redirects - its harmful enough to the encyclopaedia that we delete these redirects while they are still in use, creating redlinks in our own articles is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face. Similarly the delay between moving the article and nominating for deletion - at the very least we need to allow time for search engines to catch up. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This sounds fine in general. re: 's objection, I'd be fine changing preferably to should, but think must is perhaps too strong. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is "must" too strong? When is it ever going to be a good idea to nominate these redirects for deletion before all the incoming links are fixed? Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They can be fixed afterward ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer either question. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will not be broken because of some red links possibly getting left behind. There are enough editors in the Film Project that any redirects would be taken care of quite swiftly.  Mike   Allen  01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In which there are enough editors to fix the redirects before we make it harder for our readers to find the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with this proposal  Mike  Allen  01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added in the text to WP:UFILM, with a few slight adjustments and minor c/e. Thryduulf, I hope this satisifes your concern regarding updating incoming links. Feel free to perform additional c/e as needed. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

RMs challenging PFILM
Two RMs have been opened directly challenging WP:PFILM: InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)
 * Talk:Vertigo (film)

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: InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Here's what I'm thinking:


 * Did I miss or go overboard with anything? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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:


 * Just my 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated version:


 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * MOS:FIRST: 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)
 * Borat. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? That article very much does not open with "Borat, officially titled ..." InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Birdman (film) is an example of an article starting with the short name and not with its official long name Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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?, BFI or one of film's most important film critics? It's pretty easy finding important sources claiming this is the official name. Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Borat. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * Started a discussion at WT:FILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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 for Mulan [2020 film] rather than Mulan [2009 film]).

Please leave your thoughts below. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as this will only cause greater confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The point of disambiguation is to make an article title not ambiguous.  -- wooden  superman  11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Does this apply to subtitles?
Reviewing the current entries at WP:PDAB
 * 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 * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed since before. Still oppose * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)