Talk:Double Take (2001 film)

Comment

This movie sounds pretty confusing!

Also, it had quite a few pop-culture references. Are they worthy of being noted, or is that too much?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.144.59 (talk • contribs)

Any one else who has watched the film regard the synopsis presented in this article to be mostly inaccurate?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.208.63 (talk • contribs)

This movie makes such little sense that I am pretty sure it is not actually possible to write an accurate synopsis of it. That said, a rewrite of the whole thing probably wouldn't hurt. Mizry 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Double Take.jpg

Image:Double Take.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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: no consensus to move page. The primary topic argument makes sense, and it's not clear why PT should not apply to disambiguated titles. - GTBacchus^(talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Double Take (film) → Double Take (2001 film) — Multiple films with the same name. This one should not get priority, especially since it did not come out first. Nicholas0 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Uncontroversial. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose -- There is only one other Wikipedia article about a film named Double Take, and that is Double Take (1998 film), which is one sentence long... --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Note: The contents of Double Take (film) were recently copy-pasted into Double Take (2001 film). I have blanked the page and redirected it to Double Take (film) until a consensus is reached on the proposed move per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; while there are two other films named Double Take, this one has the most coverage, is the longest article and is most likely to be searched for. I have included a hatnote that says "
  This article is about the 2001 comedy film. For the 1998 film, see Double Take (1998 film). For the 2009 film, see Double Take (2009 film). For other uses, see Double Take.
  ". That will direct readers to the other film articles. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Being the more substantial article does not make this the primary topic. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving the article, and making the page name a redirect to the disambiguation page. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, this title is ambiguous with more than one film articles about films of the same title. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - naming conventions are not based on what article is the longest. There are multiple films with this title, and who is to say which one is more notable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unless it's been decided that this is what we do with films - to me there is no doubt that this one is the primary topic (among films with this title), and shouldn't have its article title affected by the existence of other much less significant productions.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • But it isn't the primary topic, "Double Take". We don't ennumerate how notable an article is by the number of disambiguators it has, do we? It seems that the PT should be located at Double Take and then any other articles should be complete disambiguated, not partially as this one is now. BOVINEBOY2008 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant it was the PT for "Double Take (film)", not for "Double Take". --Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Primary topics don't have disambiguators, from what I understand. Isn't that what (film) is? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have policies on sub-primary, or secondary topics. BOVINEBOY2008 09:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know this sort of thing has been discussed at various times, but I'm not aware of any consensus having been reached. For me, it makes sense to extend the concept of "primary topic" to disambiguated forms (intuition says that the existence a much less significant film or whatever shouldn't affect the article title of the main one), though perhaps the threshold for a topic to be considered primary in this case should be higher than for an undisambiguated title.--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, this makes sense. We don't maintain a hierarchy of secondary uses because it would be a collossal pain in the neck. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In August this article had almost 3,000 pageviews, compared to 240 for the other two combined. Even allowing for a missing hatnote on this article, now corrected, this clearly seems to be what most people searching for or linking to Double Take (film) would expect to find, and the hatnote handles the 10% who expect something else. This issue has come up before at Independence Day (film) and elsewhere. Station1 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not the PT, that is located at Double Take. The word you are looking for is "secondary" topic or "sub-primary" topic, for which Wikipedia has made no distinction, at least not yet. BOVINEBOY2008 04:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Whatever you call it, Wikipedia has sometimes made the distinction (such as with Independence Day, and I'm sure there must be other examples, not necessarily films). And doesn't it make logical sense to make the distinction, for the reasons stated?--Kotniski (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, the word I was looking for is "primary". This is the primary topic for the phrase Double Take (film) based on the criteria at WP:PT. It is not the primary topic for Double Take (or any other phrase currently used as an article title on WP) but that is irrelevant. The relevant criterion is: What article does someone searching for or linking to "Double Take (film)" most likely expect to find? The answer in this case is not a dab page and not some other film, but this particular article. Station1 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Citing Independence Day as a precedent is rather weak, as a look at the last RM shows that it was a weak close in the face of pretty good consensus to move. PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply for disambiguated titles for good reason, as currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:disambiguation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you keep saying that, but I've yet to hear any of the good reasons (except "it would be too complex", which I don't think it would be particularly; it would be no more complex than any normal primary topic decision).--Kotniski (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary topic discussions are a necessary evil. There's an agreement that having primary topics aids our readers. That doesn't apply to disambiguated titles. Put it another way: imagine that every article has a disambiguated title, and that we simply allow the primary topic to have a redirect to its one from the unambiguated title. That's a straightforward, one-level-deep system. You propose that we have a chain of precedence where increasingly obscure articles get increasingly more tortuous disambiguators. Huge can of worms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As explained at WT:D, having these "sub-primary" topics does aid our readers, and I only propose it for clear-cut cases like this one, where there's no realistic doubt (so no evil coming from the fact of the discussion) about whether or which of the films is primary.--Kotniski (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's "clear-cut" about this particular case. Independence Day was an international blockbuster, while this film appears rather unremarkable. The only basis for this being the primary topic seems to be page view stats, which are neither a deciding factor nor terribly reliable in this case given the (until recently) lack of a hatnote. PC78 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much a precedent, as a pointer to a discussion showing the reasoning of both sides. This has also been discussed before at WT:DAB, WT:NCF, and other move requests. It has long been normal practice for a primary topic to have the simplest qualifier necessary and others to have a more precise qualifier (see also WP:PRECISION). This has been true of songs, albums, and books, as well as films. Station1 (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.