Talk:Taxi!

On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Taxi! (1932 film). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 6 July 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus on how to apply WP:SMALLDETAILS here, ie. whether or not one/three exclamation marks is sufficient disambiguation. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi! → Taxi! (1932 film)
Taxi!!! → Taxi!!! (1978 film)

– The Taxi (disambiguation) page lists a number of films named "Taxi", including Taxi (film series), thus illustrating that disambiguating these two films via exclamation marks or even potentially via currently redlinked partial disambiguation — Taxi! (film) and Taxi!!! (film) — causes confusion beyond the argument of WP:SMALLDETAILS. For example, File:Taxi lobby card 2.jpg does not even depict an exclamation mark. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support (strongly) per nom. Far too small for WP:SMALLDETAILS. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. This is precisely the type of situation covered by WP:SMALLDETAILS. As long as hatnotes are in place, there's no reason to lengthen unique or primary topic titles. There's no evidence of confusion. (Somebody looking for the 1932 film based on that lobby card will wind up on the dab page anyway, with or without this move.) Station1 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, this is a clear instance of it applying, if you wish to overturn the rule a WP:POINTy move is not the place to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st: The exclamation mark is not used on the lobby card and is not used in the title on IMDb and is not shown on the poster art on IMDb. It is also too small a detail. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on 1st, oppose 2nd. The British TV series has 265 views compared with 877[[1]] for the film but the 2nd seems to be the only usage with 3 exclamation marks per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Counting the number of exclamation points is too small for WP:SMALLDETAILS. — AjaxSmack 22:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Who on earth is going to know whether it's got an exclamation mark and how many? Ludicrous dogmatic overuse of WP:SMALLDETAILS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLDETAILS seems to work fine here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh... do we have the exclamation point count right on Taxi!!! anyway? Both the IMDB title and the poster image have two exclamation marks, not three; I can't find another image of the poster online, though the British Film Institute uses three (there's not many sources out there, not entirely sure it meets notability guidelines, but films are not my area of expertise). I don't have a strong opinion otherwise – two or three exclamation marks is probably enough to satisfy SMALLDETAILS for me (they stand out more the more you add), but I don't know about one. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 exclamation point title can just redirect to the 3 exclamation point title. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.