Talk:Unlawful Entry (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 American cinema task force.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Fair use rationale for Image:Unlawfulentrydvdcover.jpg

Image:Unlawfulentrydvdcover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unlawfulshot1.jpg

Image:Unlawfulshot1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unlawfulshot2.jpg

Image:Unlawfulshot2.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unlawfulentrydvdcover.jpg

Image:Unlawfulentrydvdcover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unlawfulshot1.jpg

Image:Unlawfulshot1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Unlawfulshot2.jpg

Image:Unlawfulshot2.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 August 2019

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 that capitalization is sufficient for disambiguation in this instance. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlawful Entry (film) → Unlawful Entry – capitalization suffices for disambiguation fgnievinski (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski, In ictu oculi, and PC78: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

generally it doesn't - bad move. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:DIFFCAPS says. PC78 (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Disambiguation based solely on letter case (or punctuation, or diacritics) should be discouraged. ―cobaltcigs 23:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:DIFFCAPS. "Unlawful entry" is not capitalized._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per nom although if there are any other uses a DAB at the upper case would probably be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. There is no other article titled "Unlawful Entry". Although a hatnote pointing to Trespass is indicated. Station1 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Unlawful Entry redirect to Trespass gets about twice as many views as Unlawful entry. For non-proper names like this, we would normally expect the uncapitalized version to be sought more. e.g. Tort law gets orders of magnitude more views than Tort Law, Emergency room gets 10x the views of Emergency Room. This is strong evidence that the majority of readers following this redirect are not getting where they want to go. This is a clear WP:DIFFCAPS win, especially given that the lowercase phrase isn't even the title of any article (and isn't mentioned in the article it redirects to). Colin M (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that that's probably because when you start typing Unlawful entry into the search box the Unlawful Entry redirect (not Unlawful entry) comes up in the search suggestions, when this is moved the lower case redirect will also show up. This is the opposite to most other cases where the lower case redirect takes precedence such as the lower case Isle of mull (which I tried to suppress several times without success) redirect until it was moved back to Isle of Mull in June, similarly for the US, United states of america comes up when search with the long name. However I still weakly support this move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say more people search for the uppercase version because it's ranked higher in suggestions. Couldn't it also be that it's ranked higher because users are searching for it more? Colin M (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I don't know if the choice between upper and lower case is because of searches or not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To most people, Unlawful Entry is unlawful entry, given the common habit of "importance capitalization". For an ordinary movie made 27 years ago, keep the disambiguater. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe "Unlawful Entry" should instead become a DAB? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, ZXCVBNM, Station1 and Colin M because this is Wikipedia's sole main title header which depicts the words "unlawful entry". ~~Wikipedia's only other header which bears this term is a redirect to Trespass where a hatnote should indicate something to the effect of, ""For the legal term, see Trespass""~~. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the stricken sentence was intended to state, Since the only other header which bears this term is a redirect to Trespass, a hatnote atop the film's entry should indicate something to the effect of, "For the legal term, see Trespass". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this move, no primary 2601:541:4500:1760:5C18:7375:3DEA:B477 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A 2 second read of the nomination would indicate that the argument is not about whether there is a primary topic, but about whether people should be automatically sent to Unlawful entry if they typed Unlawful Entry. Sadly, people can't even put in that much effort._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd also lean towards converting Unlawful Entry into a DAB since the term for trespassing seems common enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it would aid in achieving consensus, I would likewise support the conversion of Unlawful Entry into a disambiguation page listing both Unlawful Entry (film) and the legal term Unlawful entry [1][2]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. Typing "Unlawful Entry" compared to "unlawful entry" is an intentional seeking-out of a work and not the common term. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - largely per Anthony Appleyard. I've taken a screenshot of search results. While I take the point regarding DIFFCAPS editors have made, I believe it's not considering what a layperson may do when they try to find an article. They could, as I did, type "Unlawful e" in the search bar, then the results start to populate, and they look for the article they want in that list. Right now, it's clear to a reader if they were trying to reach the film article, which option to pick. Changing the film to the title without disambiguation, even with a hatnote, means readers that are looking for the lowercase redirect (which goes to the subsequent trespass article, which doesn't populate here) may have to arrive at an article they aren't looking for (the film), and then click the hatnote to get to their destination (Trespass). I would favour keeping things as they are. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Search results on Wikipedia mobile search
  @Steven Crossin: Keep in mind that a (growing) majority of readers are accessing Wikipedia on mobile devices, and so they get a different experience when typing that in to search. They see short descriptions for each result. (see additional screenshot). Colin M (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for providing this Colin M. I do take your point regarding mobile readers, however I would still argue that the current setup is preferential, because it's possible as setup it could cause a desktop user extra steps to navigate to an intended page, and Anthony's point I think is a valid one. I wouldn't support a DAB either, I think the current hatnote works fine. The argument editors make about diffcaps may be valid, but I'd want to see an example of how this is implemented elsewhere technically to see what both desktop and mobile readers would see in their search results. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The offence could also easily be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Erik. --В²C ☎ 00:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term "Unlawful Entry", in common usage and by long-term significance, does not mean this film. It is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term in any capitalization. — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.