Talk:Copenhagen (2002 film)

Requested move 5 January 2015

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 consensus (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 05:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Copenhagen (2002 film) → ? – (Either Copenhagen (TV film) or Copenhagen (2002 TV film)) - Simply put, this is a television film, so its disambiguation's naming convention should be dictated by WP:NCTV, not WP:NCF (which would put the title at Copenhagen (TV film)). However, due to the move war that has started over following the proper naming convention, the alternate option would be to give this article a disambiguator that is a combination of WP:NCTV and WP:NCF (which would put the article's title at Copenhagen (2002 TV film)), but since this is a television film and this should fall solely on WP:NCTV's making guidelines, the disambiguator "TV film" is my first choice and "2002 TV film" is my second choice (especially since the disambiguation page Copenhagen (disambiguation) currently does not list any other television films). The current name does not address the naming convention set in WP:NCTV. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Steel that the naming convention would be dictated by WP:NCTV. Copenhagen (TV film) would seem to be the most correct page title - though Copenhagen (2002 TV film) seems like an excellent compromise. - Xenxax (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agree, it should be "TV film." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Question: NCTV says that (TV film) should be used if the name "do[es] not conflict with other films". However, it doesn't specify whether it refers to TV films specifically or all films. This quote is immediately followed by a link to NCF, which makes me believe the latter. If that's the case, I think (2002 TV film) is the most appropriate. For instance, in the case of Noah (1998 film) (which is also misnamed), would that become (1998 TV film) due to Noah (2014 film)? Thanks! Sock (tock talk) 12:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This article does not fall solely under WP:NCTV. As Sock points out, the naming convention for TV films contains a link to WP:NCF, which tells me that the film conventions should take precedence. Plus, per WP:PRECISE, disambiguation should be "enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Therefore, Copenhagen (film) would be enough, if this were the only film article with that title. But since there is more than one, Copenhagen (2002 film) is enough to disambiguate this article from Copenhagen (2014 film). Copenhagen (2002 TV film) is simply unnecessary, because there are no other articles for films titled "Copenhagen" that were released in 2002. The fact that this film was a television film is irrelevant. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it is first and foremost a TV production is most certainly relevant. It was shot on Digital Betacam video tape and film effected for screening on TV. It was not produced as a feature film to be shown in cinemas, which in fact it never has been in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not about the format of the production, it is about how to disambiguate this article on Wikipedia. If there are two articles about films with the same title, WP:NCF states to "add the year of its first verifiable release". The film's format, whether it be animated, documentary, television, etc., is only needed when two films with the same title were released in the same year. So, if there were a second article about a film titled "Copenhagen" released in 2002, then the additional disambiguation of "TV" would be necessary. Since there is not, Copenhagen (2002 film) is sufficient. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Fortdj33: I never stated in my rationale that I believe that the title does not have sufficient disambiguation; if we are going by year disambiguation alone, the two articles do have sufficient disambiguation to distinguish them from each other. My move request is to determine which naming convention take priority in this case. And, I believe it is WP:NCTV since television films are specifically mentioned in that guideline, whereas WP:NCF refers editors to WP:NCTV for articles such as this one. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And as I stated above, I believe the reverse is true: that WP:NCTV defers to the naming convention at WP:NCF, while the latter simply mentions the former as a "See also" link. This has been discussed before, and there was little interest then in updating the naming conventions for television films. And personally, I still agree with what BDD stated back then: "Unless further disambiguation is necessary—i.e., multiple films of the same name from the same year—why even bring "TV" into the title?" Fortdj33 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: Simply put (and I'm probably being redundant), because naming conventions exist. I think the bigger issue here that you are bringing up can be resolved by merging WP:NCF and WP:NCTV, and I may even support that merger. However, until that merger happens, I'm putting my opinions (that actually fall along the same lines as yours) aside in lieu of article-titling consistency. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well overall, I think that television film articles requiring disambiguation have consistently followed WP:NCF. For example, look at Category:Television film stubs. With the exception of a couple miniseries, the articles in that category needing more than "(film)" for disambiguation, use the year of release, not the format. So to be consistent, this article should stay at Copenhagen (2002 film), and WP:NCTV just needs to be updated to reflect that as the norm. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fortdj33, I think you're missing the point. In the UK there is a huge difference with feature films and television dramas, and this is undoubtedly an example of the latter. If someone says "film" here, it is overwhelmingly understood to mean a feature film, not a TV drama. Even the term "TV film" is hardly ever used; self-conrtained productions were previously called "(television) plays," and even today simply "drama" would be the most common description. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fortdj33's reasoning. If there was another film of the same name and same release year, then further disambig would be needed. If no other films of this name existed, the artice would currently sit at Copenhagen (film) and not Copenhagen (TV film). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: My rationale above is not that the title isn't properly disambiguated; the issue is which naming convention should have priority over the other. At the current title, WP:NCTV would be completely disregarded in its disambiguator, even though, from what I'm seeing on both WP:NCF and WP:NCTV, it should not be disregarded. I'm wondering if WP:NCF and WP:NCTV need to be merged... Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Both projects have jurisdiction here, so both 2002 film and TV film are acceptable disambiguators in this regard (2002 TV film is not per WP:PRECISE as noted above). The question then is which disambiguator should we choose having two legitimate options? It is not unfeasible that another TV film titled "Copenhagan" could be released down the line, meaning that further disambigation would then be required if the move went ahead. If that occurred the most likely choice of disambiguator would be 2002 film so using the year seems to be a more longterm solution (unless of course there are any other films with the same title from the same year). Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2015 (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.