Talk:...Re

Requested move 01 April 2016

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: Not moved. Consensus that the ... is not sufficient disambiguation to remove (film), and no consensus to move to any other title right now (though some do suggest removing the ... altogether). (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

---

...Re (film) → ...Re – No need for parenthetical disambiguation in title as there are no other Wikipedia articles about subjects called "...Re". – GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• @GeoffreyT2000: The dots are not enough distinction from many other pages listed in disambig page Re, some with dots attached. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – in agreement with what Anthony Appleyard says. Better to make it recognizable as a film title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per NEW INDIAN EXPRESS : 'Re' Revolves Around the 'ifs' of our Lives: Desai In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read the body of that article... Dohn joe (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it is not consistently called "...", which is why using "..." instead of "(film)" is not helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – in agreement with what Anthony Appleyard says. Clearer if it is recognizable as a film title. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Anyone typing in the "..." before "Re" is probably looking for this film. The current title will stay as a redirect, as will Re (film), which I just created. Dohn joe (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, should be located at Re (film) with ...Re as a logical redirect. BOVINEBOY2008 16:19, 1 April 2016 (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.

"...Re" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ...Re has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25 § ...Re until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

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: moved. Moved to ...Re with supporters citing WP:SMALLDETAILS as justification for the move. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 15:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

---

...Re (film) → ...Re – Copied from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#...Re — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

...Re (film) was moved away from this title after a March 2016 discussion; a followup April 2016 RfD ended without consensus. It was then boldly retargeted to the disambiguation page Re in May 2016, with an explanation on the talk page, but this was reverted in 2018. I personally think it should redirect to Re (or else the film should be moved back to this title), for the reasons laid out at WP:MISPLACED, but the history here is complicated enough that I want to make sure there's consensus for this change. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Move the film here at it appears to be the only thing called this per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Either Move ...Re (film) back to ...Re (in which case, a hatnote to the dab page will suffice), or move ...Re (film) to Re (film), if you're not happy with the stylization being a part of either the article title or the running text. In either case, the current redirect should point to the film as an apparently typical stylization at the very least, and since nothing on the dab page would be prepended with 3 dots. The current situation is silly. If the current redirect is pointing to the film, then the film should be sitting at the base title. I don't really understand how the move discussion came to the conclusion it did. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment –We shouldn't be moving a page based purely on an RfD discussion that goes against a previous RM. If people want the film moved to this title, an RM should be started. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close per Cremastra. Most of the time, we perform moves at RfD, but this appears to have RM history, which should ideally go through RM. Jay 💬 11:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. If not moved, the move target needs to redirect to Re, per WP:MISPLACED. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support moving per my comment above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ambiguous. We are meant to be helping our users not pandering to the smugness of Wikipedia insiders. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  What else is called with the 3 dots? If we think using the 3 dots is problematic per MOS:TM then I'd be fine with Re (film). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support this situation in which a disambiguation term is not necessary. Typing "...Re" is going to be specific only to this topic. However, is it not possible that Re (as opposed to ...Re) is the WP:COMMONNAME, meaning that Re (film) is more appropriate? I am seeing Deccan Herald and India Times write just "Re", for example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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.