Talk:Fugly (film)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Fugly (film) → Fugly – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Super Camille (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC) There is no page named Fugly, it redirects here. Swear words in the indian language aren't redirects to their English translation. So this page should be moved to Fugly, removing excessive disambiguation.

• Oppose "Fugly" means "ugly", so should redirect to where ugliness points: Beauty#Ugliness -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE "Fugly" is an ENGLISH word, not a translation. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "Fugly" means "ugly", so (film) is needed, whether or not Fugly should redirect to where ugliness points: Beauty#Ugliness. Note that keeping (film) will also help when someone eventually gets around to making an article on the TV Fugly Awards mentioned in a dozen articles, at which point this would become a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the same as "The Fug Awards", mentioned at Go_Fug_Yourself#The_Fug_Awards, such that TV Fugly Awards should redirect there? DMacks (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, [1] vs [2] sound different. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per In ictu oculi. I don't see how "swear words in the indian language" is relevant here, since "fucking ugly" is an English swear and this is the English wikipedia. That meaning was already rejected as a viable WP article itself (transwikied as dictdef), so we at least need a redirect-hatnote pointing to wikt:fugly or to an en.wp page about ugliness. But now that there seems to be a potential for another actual article on a third independent topic, I'd support a dab page (especially because "english common phrase" vs "indian movie" seems a philosophical deadlock for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). DMacks (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fugly (consensus delete) was for the dictdef; the later Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fugly (2nd nomination) was for the film itself. DMacks (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but in this case, the word is a complete fiction. The word means Fighting Ugly. I'm sure it isn't a real word. I am even fine with this page being moved to F*UGLY. As for awards, there aren't listed on disambigs. It will be Fugly awards. A hatnotr for Wikitionary can be added here.--Super Camille (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at about half of the sources used and none of them use the typography F*Ugly, not even the one that repeated a tweet from the producer who also simply used Fugly, as does the entry at IMDB. The only place i see F*Ugly is in the typography of the promotional poster, which is a place where choices for graphic visual display take preferential lead over accuracy. Is there a significant batch of reliably published sources that use the astrix? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose the most common usage is most certainly NOT this film which will be forgotten in a year. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC) In addition, the redirect pointing here has been changed to a DAB page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 19 June 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.

Requested move 26 March 2018

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: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Fugly (film) → Fugly – This is the only article named Fugly, and it is standard practice not to disambiguate an article title unless it is needed. Fugly should be moved to Fugly (disambiguation) Jax 0677 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Fugly (film) → Fugly – only article with this title Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Fugly is a disambiguation page and Fugly (disambiguation) redirects to it. This implies a consensus that no topic is primary for the term. Because this request affects those pages as well, I feel it is a bit more than merely a technical move and prefer seeing it discussed.--John Cline (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Jax 0677 and John Cline: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It's the only encyclopedic topic of that name with an article at Wikipedia, and none of the other entries on the DAB page seem like much competition. —  AjaxSmack  01:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOPRIMARY. The presence or lack of presence of other articles is irrelevant. Per WP:Disambiguation, the standard is whether there is other coverage on Wikipedia, even if that coverage is in sections of other articles. This hindi film is definitely not the primary topic... its not even the only film named this. The primary topic is the blend of "fucking ugly" as covered in Unattractiveness and the word is used as the name of several films, a band, some songs, and more the name of several films, a band, some songs, and more. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Netoholic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose there's also Fugly (2013 film). And honestly I would move this to Fugly (2014 film) even if the Indian film is more likely to looked for. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic, ZXCVBNM and In ictu oculi.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2018 (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.