Talk:Lovers Rock (2020 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Requested move 27 December 2020[edit]

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers Rock (2020 film) → Lovers Rock (film) – ~~No conflict. There's Lovers' Rock (film) but that can be addressed in a hatnote.~~ Nardog (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCF Lovers Rock (1964 film) also exists. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Not "also". It is you, In ictu oculi, who boldly moved Lovers' Rock (film) to Lovers Rock (1964 film), then to Lovers' Rock (1964 film), shortly before the technical request was contested by GeoffreyT2000. I wouldn't be surprised if Geoffrey did so because of your bold moves, which I've requested to be undone at WP:RM/TR because it's muddied this RM. Nardog (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Nardog, I've reverted the move and moved the article back to Lovers' Rock (film). ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Materialscientist did the move here prematurely. I have reverted their move and left a note on their user talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM and Lovers Rock (1964 film). — BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't apply because the title is different. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the apostrophe when I made my remark above, but I'm not sure whether that's enough of a difference to change my mind. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what hatnotes are for. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. There is only one film titled Lovers Rock. The other one is titled Lovers' Rock. Neither title should have the year; both should have a hatnote. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE possibly related RM at Talk:Lovers' Rock (film) would say to the new IP account above that would not be considered a major consistent significant difference, given the obscurity of 1964 film. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lovers Rock per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With or without the apostrophe, pageviews indicate this movie has been the clear primary topic for the past month and will be for the foreseeable future. Lovers Rock (disambiguation) already exists. Station1 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against it, but recentism must be considered. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true, but considering this is a highly-rated Steve McQueen film starring Micheal Ward and the other topics together had pageviews consistently totaling less than 10% of this film's current views, it is likely this will be the primary topic for at least the next year or two, if not indefinitely. Station1 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Station1: Failing that, would you support a move as proposed? Nardog (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's less important. People search for "Lovers Rock" expecting the film, so shunting them off to lovers rock and then a dab page is a real disservice. Fewer people search for "Lovers Rock (film)". Station1 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in a vacuum, I think both films should be moved in the same RM.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnecessary ambiguity. Support moving Lovers' Rock (film) to Lovers' Rock (1964 film). Furthermore, recentism is a concern, and lovers rock has "greater enduring notability and educational value". Would we really put a work under Rock and Roll (which redirects to rock and roll)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi, BarrelProof, Ortizesp and Erik. The main title header for Lovers Rock (2020 film) should remain in that form unless and until there is clear evidence that it is the primary topic for the Lovers Rock (disambiguation) page and then it should be moved to Lovers Rock per Station1. As for Lovers' Rock (film), its header should be Lovers' Rock (1964 film) to differentiate it from the 2020 film. If WP:SMALLDETAILS regarding the apostrophe were to play a deciding role, then the header for the 1964 film should be simply Lovers' Rock. Since it is the sole Wikipedia entry with that exact header, the qualifier "(film)" would be unnecessary. A hatnote would point to the Lovers Rock (disambiguation) page where any uncertainties would be sorted out. Speaking of WP:SMALLDETAILS, "(disambiguation)" may likewise be an unnecessary qualifier within the dab page header which, unless the 2020 film becomes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, can be simply "Lovers Rock" since all entries, other than the style of reggae music, use uppercase "R" for "Rock". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note Now that the other RM has been closed as move, I can no longer support this proposal. Nardog (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.