Talk:O-Negative (1998 film)

Requested move 6 December 2024

Option A:

• O-Negative (1998 film) → O-Negative
• O Negative (film) → O Negative

Option B:

• O-Negative (1998 film) → O-Negative (film)
• O Negative (film) remains at current title

Option C:

• O Negative (film) → O Negative (2015 film)
• O-Negative (1998 film) remains at current title

Option D: Same as option C, plus

• O Negative (disambiguation) → O Negative

– Option A: The capitalisation and hyphenation of the titles are adequate distinction of the topics, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Each page should have a hatnote linking to blood type and the other film. The redirects can be speedy deleted as G6. Option B: The details are too small for distinction, and the blood type is the primary topic for all capitalisations. The hyphen is adequate disambiguation between the films, which should have hatnotes linking to each other. Option C: The details are too small for distinction of all these topics, and the films also need disambiguation against each other. Option D: The hyphen is too small a detail but capitalisation is adequate to indicate either of the films as the intended topic. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC), 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option C because whether or not a dash is used in the title is such a small and not memorable detail (compared to having an exclamation mark or being in all caps). I could also see reliable sources being inconsistent for either film in whether they use a dash or not. On a separate note, searching for o negative doesn't show any navigation aids to get to either film. Maybe a hatnote needs to exist at Blood type § Red blood cell compatibility, where "o negative" redirects to? Not sure if there are other works that are named after blood types that could be included with the navigation aids too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I created a disambiguation page but hadn't added it to the target. Done now. (This should be removed if option A is the outcome). --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Added option D for completeness. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support option C. The hyphen is insufficient disambiguation, and the blood type is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support option C. There is insufficient disambiguation. Theparties (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support Option C per Erik, 162 etc. and Theparties. The incomplete disambiguations O-Negative (film) and O Negative (film) should both redirect to the O Negative (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support option A the primary topic for lowercase O negative and O-negative is clearly the blood type, but not for uppercase O-Negative or O Negative. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, which is article title policy, hatnotes and a disambiguation page serve the disambiguation needs here; nothing is gained by adding parenthetical qualifiers to every variation. If we must redirect the uppercase O-Negative and O Negative as meaning the blood type, option B would make sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one is advocating for adding parenthetical qualifiers to "every" variation. There are times when all related topics and redirects have too few pageviews to make confident claims that a reader typing in the term's title case is definitely looking for one of the title-case works (and in this case, exactly one film over the other, knowing whether or not it has a dash). This past year's pageviews here show very few pageviews across the board and do not seem to indicate a clear relationship with title-case search queries to a film article, with "O Negative" (which redirects to the blood type) getting a spike earlier this year with no relation to the sole film article at the time. Small details can indeed be too small, whether it be pluralizing or spacing or dashing between common terms of two or more words. WP:SMALLDETAILS does not throw down "policy" saying that if there is even the slightest variation, all topics must have titles differentiating on that alone. Parenthetical qualifiers are not inherently bad, just that they can be dropped if there is a good case that readers can be self-directing precisely. We don't have that good case here, and clear disambiguation is acceptable in that light. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option D or Option C. I don't think there is a primary topic with this capitalization, but if there is, it is the blood type rather than either film. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option C per Walsh90210. The bare terms should probably just lead to the blood type. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option C. As the creator of the 2015 film's article, the only reason it's at the title it's at is that the 1998 film didn't have an article at all yet — if it had, then I'd have put the year in the Canadian film's title from the jump — but now that it does, I'm not for one second going to claim that a fairly obscure short film would be much more notable than a full feature film just because I personally knew about the short film first, and the mere presence of a hyphen in the feature film's title isn't sufficient to prevent confusion. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option C. A hyphen is insufficient for disambiguation. O Negative (film) and O-Negative (film) should be redirects to O Negative (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)