Talk:Jhol (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Pakistani cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Pakistan

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 11 November 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Two+Two (2016 film). This is frankly a mess of a discussion, but adding 2016 is what the majority of participants have preferred and they have made a reasonable case for it. Two+Two (film) will be retargeted to the dab. I cannot say there is a consensus to move 2+2 (film) for the simple reason that no notification has been left at that article – if people want it moved, they will have to start a separate RM, though they may also want to consider Tbhotch's suggestion of Dos más dos. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two+Two → Two+Two (film) – an unreleased film is not more likely that 2+2; the current title should redirect to 2+2 disambiguation page – 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sst✈^(discuss) 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Gulangyu (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The point of disambiguation is to get readers to the article they want to go to. The argument given above turns that idea upside down and treats a disambiguation page as if it was a primary topic with educational value. As far as the proposal itself goes, it conflicts with WP:DIFFPUNCT. Gulangyu (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab pages do have substantial educational value. Bumping into one teaches the reader that there are other notable topics with a particular name that they might not be aware of – topics that in some cases are more notable than the one they were aware of – and introduce the reader to those topics along with a link to where to find out more about them. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If there was any other article under this title I would already have created film page with Two+Two (film). Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Umais Bin Sajjad, the author of this article, deleted the linkage to the disambiguation page [1] making it impossible to find any other topics by this or alternate spellings of the same, or similar names. Since English numerals are spelled out words, this effectively means that English terms are excluded and we have to use Arabic terms instead (Arabic numerals), which is fundamentally wrong. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support we already have 2+2 (film) which should really be at 2+2 (2012 film), a 2012 Argentine comedy film, and Two & Two (2011 film), so this one really should be at Two+Two (2016 film). Then we have 2+2 and Two Plus Two. We need WP:RECOGNIZABLE titles. And WP:DIFFPUNCT had been messed with to say the opposite of what we do. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between 2+2, Two & Two, Two+Two as far as page title is concerned. All should be mentioned on dab page but not moved. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the average person draws a strong distinction between "Two+Two" and "2+2". Both are simple mathematical expressions that are equivalent. Some people tend to use numerals while others use words when writing down numbers in prose. That is just a matter of styling. Moreover, if someone verbally told you the name of one of these film titles, there would be no difference between "2" or "Two" – they sound the same, so a parenthetical disambiguation is needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Two+Two (2016 film) and move 2+2 (film) to 2+2 (2012 film) per IIO's suggestion, since there are several topic that are candidates for the term "Two+Two". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion is fine by me. I am the nominator -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several topic for 2+2 (dab) but not Two+Two, we should not take both as a number but as different thing (film title). Until there is no such film with this title so it shouldn't be moved. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~BarrelProof's~~ In ictu oculi's proposal per WP:DIFFCAPS since I do not think that there are "small details" here that are distinct enough to disambiguate the film articles from each other and other topics. Readers may search for their preferred topic in different ways, such as "2 + 2", "2 plus 2", "two plus two", "two + two", etc. I think it is best to redirect all ambiguous terms to 2+2 so readers can choose the topic they want. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted a closure of this RM discussion by involved editor Umais Bin Sajjad. Per WP:RM#Closing instructions, the discussion must be closed by an uninvolved editor. In ictu oculi has made an alternative proposal, which BarrelProof and I endorse as well, and the uninvolved editor must determine the consensus for how to disambiguate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed an error introduced when Umais Bin Sajjad inserted a comment in the wrong place, making it appear as if I was agreeing with him, instead of with BarrelProof. To clarify, I agree with BarrelProof, and not the comment that Umais Bin Sajjad inserted into the chain above my comment. I've since restored the placement of my comment in the comment chain -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with the original proposal. But strong oppose moving 2+2 (film) where desired. Almost all the references call it Dos más dos, not 2+2, so clearly that's not the common name. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 08:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Erik. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: page moved without consensus by Umais Bin Sajjad, relisting to determine consensus. sst✈^(discuss) 01:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Two+Two (2016 film); move 2+2 (film) to 2+2 (2012 film); and redir Two+Two to 2+2, per the above discussion. Agreed with the summary that WP:DIFFPUNCT has been altered in ways that do not actually reflect consensus standard operating procedure and which conflict with central WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy. DIFFPUNCT is of no avail here anyway, because a sentence would not begin "2+2 is a film that..."; it would be rewritten by almost anyone to spell out the title in such a position; ergo we cannot rely on readers or even reliable sources to universally distinguish between these titles on nothing but "Two" versus "2". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.