Talk:AfterLife (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 British 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.

Disability

AfterLife (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfterLife (2003 film) → AfterLife – The film is the only article using this exact title, so the article should be located at the plain title. Disambiguation from similarly titled films can be handled with a hatnote pointing the dab page. ShelfSkewed Talk 05:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MOS:DAB. There is no other AfterLife with capital "L" and no space. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as utterly unhelpful. Unjustified by anything beyond implacable adherence to a principle elevated beyond its proper role, as one among many. See (of course!) Afterlife (disambiguation), with its dozens of confusible entries.

In the real world of real readers, "afterlife" might turn up styled in all sorts of ways. The readers whose needs we serve are not disciples of MOS:DAB or students of WP:TITLE; they do not view Wikipedia through the same lens as we do. Let's achieve that insight, and apply it.

Noetica^Tea? 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I respect your opinion--and I expect others will agree with you--I disagree with your reasoning, and I resent a bit your assertion that my motive is slavish adherence to a guideline at the expense of users. This move would be helpful to those users who know the correct title of the film and type it in exactly, expecting to land on this article. Why penalize them by sending them to the dab page? Users who type in AfterLife by accident would be accommodated by the hatnote I suggested. How would you handle the case of the uniquely titled film After.Life? Should that be disambiguated also? Of course there are many things titled Afterlife with a variety of capitalizations, spacings and punctuation, but using the natural disambiguation of unique titles, supported by a sensible system of hatnotes and a dab page, is, I think, an approach that serves users well.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the capital "L" in the middle of the word is not distinctive enough for disambiguation purposes. Powers ^T 02:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: agree with Powers. And there is a plethora of Afterlife (X) titles. Why on earth should this one be given the privilege of being unmarked? This "primary topic" notion is spinning out of control. $Tony (talk)$ 03:05, 3 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.