Talk:Public Access (film)

On 18 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Public Access to Public Access (film). The result of the discussion was moved.

References[edit]

The DVD cover cites the Los Angeles Times writing of the film, "Highly original and thoroughly unpredictable!" I am not able to find the review for this, but the Los Angeles Times has very closed news archives. Also, the poster for the film references a few reviews, one which is used and two which could still be used. One is from Screen International and wrote, "'Public Access' heralds the arrival of an extremely accomplished young writer/director in Bryan Singer." One is from Chicago Tribune's Dave Kehr; article's abstract is here. "Further reading" also has a book with a chapter about Public Access, albeit shared with another Sundance film. Erik (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 November 2022[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: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Access → Public Access (film) – No evidence that this film is the primary topic ahead of others at Public access (disambiguation), notably Public-access television, which gets more than twice the pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS, which clearly outlines "Iron maiden vs. Iron Maiden, or Ice cube vs. Ice Cube" as two examples where title case is appropriate disambiguation. Typing public access or Public access will lead to the disambiguation page. Typing Public Access, which is the only topic where both words' first letters are capitalized, leads to the film. Nothing to change here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If moved it should redirect to Public access (disambiguation) not Public access per WP:DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm not a fan of DIFFCAPS especially in cases where one article is relatively obscure.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, WP:DIFFCAPS is a bad idea that should be scrapped. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted that WP:DIFFCAPS is part of policy and the above sentiments are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not rooted in the page-view activity we are seeing here. All related page views are here. It looks like public access or public access (disambiguation) has 0-2 daily page views throughout 2022. Furthermore, public-access television and Public Access show no relation to each other. Even when the former spiked in April 2022, the latter did not spike too, which shows that there are not readers arriving at the film article looking for the public-access television article, despite the nominator's claims. Basically, this move request is to fix a nonexistent problem and will add completely unnecessary verbiage in violation of WP:CONCISE. If anything, we should move public-access television to public access and then see if that article and the film article relate to each other at all afterward. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:DIFFCAPS is policy, I'll note that community consensus is not always in favour of it - see Talk:Drivers License (song) for a recent example of a DIFFCAPS RM that was resoundingly shot down. There was also some talk last year of possibly changing the policy, see the discussion at Talk:The Wörld Is Yours. 162 etc. (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't say what some people seem to think it says. It includes words like "may", "general", "might", "reasonably", "disambiguation", and "usually". It is not really phrased as some sort of commandment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been an adequate case made that readers could plausibly type "Public Access" in search of the common noun. I can't think of any examples offhand, but if the common noun has a tendency to show up in title case (like some marketing term), it could make perhaps sense to disambiguate a proper-noun article. At the end of the day, this is policy, not guideline, the latter which would say "occasional exceptions may apply". Here, this is a run-of-the-mill example of WP:DIFFCAPS being applied. If policy's expectation is that readers typing a search term in title case means they are looking for something more than the common noun, then an extremely compelling case needs to be made to not apply WP:DIFFCAPS. There is no such case being presented here by anyone, only personal POV statements like "I'm not a fan" or "it's a bad idea". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – better to disambiguate than to keep it ambiguous with small diffs. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not at all a good DIFFCAPS case, because a lot of individuals over-capitalize bureaucratese like "public access", so the film title is not actually distinguished by being capitalized. Also, public access television is almost certainly the primary topic anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:31, 6 December 2022 (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.