Why does it say pending when the nominations aren't released yet?? Surely every film from 2009 should have that in place, or none Aurelius2007 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the Plot of The Musical, not the Film
Whomever wrote this article seems to have copied wholesale the plot description of the Broadway musical, not the movie. It makes references to musical numbers not in the film (The Bells of St. Sebatian; The Grand Canal), no refrences to numbers ONLY in the film (Cinema Italiano) and even ignores minor changes like changes in Character's names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well the "plot" written in the article isn't even a plot. It's barely even a summary. It's like what, two sentences? If you don't like it, you have the right to write the actual plot yourself. Thank you. Arilicious (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
– I don't think the numeral versus the number spelled out is enough to distinguish these films, so they could benefit from more WP:PRECISE names. WP:NCFILM recommends such disambiguation. My first thought for this film was Nine (2009 musical film), although based on an intitle search, nothing else is disambiguated as a musical film, so best to use a more standard term. BDD (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Do you think we need to have "2009" if these two films are the only ones on Wikipedia with that title? Per WP:PRECISION, we just need to be as precise as necessary. The one pairing I can think of that is similar to this is Black Rain (American film) and Black Rain (Japanese film). The release year isn't axiomatic. It's just the most neutral way to disambiguate, but here, the type of film seems okay. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Nevermind, I just saw that 9 (2005 film) exists. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Strong support clearly highly ambiguous, and "Nine (film)" should be repointed to the disambiguation page 9 (film). -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Support verbatim as 184.108.40.206: highly ambiguous, and "Nine (film)" should be repointed to the disambiguation page 9 (film)In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It's my understanding that dabs shouldn't exist at partially disambiguated titles, so 9 (film) should redirect to 9 (disambiguation)#Films. But I suppose that's tangential to this discussion. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Support due to ambiguity of current titles, and all films should be disambiguated from each other. BDD, I have to ask, what makes this different from Ocean's 11 and Ocean's Eleven, where you supported ambiguity? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This one caught my eye because it's one of those unusual situations where there are two films of the same name in the same year. I think this differs from Ocean's in that there are only two topics there, so whether or not a reader spells out "eleven," there's a 50/50 chance they get their desired topic first. Bring a dab into play would just make that process less efficient. But in this case, with a total of three films named 9 or Nine and none of them as a primary topic, the extra precision will make navigation more efficient. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Since these articles already have disambiguation terms, let's avoid confusion altogether and make the disambiguation fully explicit. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. "9" and "Nine" are ambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 6 January 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.