Talk:Source Code

References to use

• Source Code Edit Bay Visit, comingsoon.net

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Groundhog Day?

"Colter re-lives the incident over and over again, gathering clues each time, until he can solve the mystery of who is behind the bombs and prevent the next attack, but he eventually falls in love with one of the passengers." - Sounds like Groundhog Day. 71.90.29.110 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New information indicates that he's crossing over into near-parallel timelines ala quantum mechanics and not able to influence his prime timeline. He needs the info from another timeline to find the bomber MikeSims (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a rip off of "Deja Vu".74.100.60.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Source Code (film) → Source Code — Per WP:PRECISION, we do not need to disambiguate if the topics are in different cases. The film is in title case, so when readers explicitly search for "Source Code", they will arrive at the film article. WP:PRECISION mentions red meat vs. Red Meat. Film examples include panic room vs. Panic Room and pulp fiction vs. Pulp Fiction. We can add a hatnote to point readers to source code just in case, but it is much more likely than not that they will be looking for the film. --Erik (talk | contribs) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment or we could just build a dab page at Source Code, since most likely links here will be for "source code", and people enter title case into the search box as well. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  Dab pages are for when there are several possible targets. When there are only 2, as here, hatnotes suffice and are much preferred. A dab page would only create an unnecessary extra step for readers to reach their intended target. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support and hatnote each, per my above comment. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support with hatnotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support – not really a disambiguation issue as such, since Source Code is not really an alternative name for "Source code". The film should get the title page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - with hatnote per above. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Erik (no relation) and I think there probably ought to be a hatnote. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

  I do find it funny that I run across you fairly often since the Fight Club discussion. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Unique by means of capitalization. Hatnote will be required though. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source Code/Source code distinction

Hi!

I interpret the previous discussion to indicate that Source Code should lead to the movie, but Source code should lead to the concept. Isn't this the case? If not, I'd seriously request a reconsideration. Merely typing "source code" should lead to the concept, not the movie.

Thanks. Kumar Appaiah (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)