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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

• 4 Minutes (Madonna song) → 4 Minutes
• Four Minutes (film) → Four Minutes
• 4 Minutes → 4 Minutes (disambiguation)

– The Madonna song and the film are the only topics with any real notability. Plus, as shown by Ocean's 11 and 1 Thing, numbers can suffice as disambiguation. Unreal7 (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. WP:SMALLDETAILS can suffice for disambiguation, and the new titles are more WP:CONCISE, but remember to add hatnotes to both articles that link to each other. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. Unreal7 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support although I think the disambiguation page should be renamed Four minutes. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:D921:DFE4:B864:7C71 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The song and the film are definitely not the primary topics. Sawol (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what is/are the primary topic(s)? There's nothing else notable there. Unreal7 (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think there has to be a primary topic? The disambiguation is located at the base location because there isn't one. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There doesn't HAVE to be a primary topic, but the fact of the matter is that there IS one - and it's the Madonna song. Look at the view statistics provided below. Unreal7 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose to all per what WP:SMALLDETAILS was intended to do, see ongoing discussion please User:Sovereign Sentinel as an effort to restore some common sense to that guideline is underway. We do not disambiguate by 4 Minutes vs Four Minutes and never have because such artificial differences are not consistent in WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the reason why I noted that hatnotes have to be added if the page move takes place. The difference between '4' and 'Four' is sufficient for disambiguation, compared to other cases where only punctuation is used for disambiguation. I have seen the discussion and I still support the move. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The title should be the name of the subject, or be as close to it as possible. Gulangyu (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per precedence shown with Ocean's 11 and 1 Thing. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The distinction between "4" and "Four" is too small to be used for dab purposes. Indeed, we (and others) often ignore such minor stylization differences. Per MOS:CT / WP:TITLETM / MOS:TM, we generally try to avoid non-standard decorative stylizations and prefer ordinary English formatting. In this case, per MOS:NUM, ordinary English formatting would generally prefer "Four" over "4". I see no justification for any of these proposed moves. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to move "4" to "four," that's a different RM. Gulangyu (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to move any of these. I thought I made that clear. It is not beneficial to our readers to move these unambiguous titles to ambiguous titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, let's see if I have this one straight. You're fine with the article staying at its "non-standard decorative stylization" because......your focus is strictly parentheticals? Well, every man has his limits, and it's best when you know where your strengths lie. Gulangyu (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest to tone down the snark level, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. We actually have a guideline about that, which seems to apply here. Although WP:SPELL09 says that "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", in WP:NUMNOTES we have "Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered: Seven Samurai;  The Sixth Sense;  5 Channel Street;  Channel 5;  Chanel No. 5;  Fourth Estate;  The Third Man;  Second Judicial District;  First Amendment;  Zero Hour!;  Less Than Zero". So although we might not expect everyone to follow the same usage (and therefore the names are ambiguous), we should follow the original usage in these titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your argument is with the guideline. WP:SMALLDETAILS explicitly allows for disambiguation based on even smaller details than this. So long as the software can distinguish the two, what's the problem? Humans will disambiguate by consulting the articles that these titles are attached to, not by using the parentheticals. Gulangyu (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it should be pretty clear that WP:SMALLDETAILS needs to be applied with consideration of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is discussed below. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The small distinction between "4" and "Four" is not too small for the context of WP titles. The only reason titles for two articles can't be identical on WP is due to a technical limitation (titles are reflected in each article's url which must be unique), but there is no reason any two titles can't be almost identical. It's not like there is a context where the two titles, and nothing else about the article topics, are displayed, and the user must decide which is the one being sought. --В²C ☎ 01:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should ask ourselves, when the difference between two article titles is only the difference between "4" and "Four", whether this small difference is enough to make each one a distinct WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its variant. I personally think that the average person doesn't draw much of a distinction between "4" and "Four", and might type either one when looking for the other. Thus, I believe that additional disambiguation is desirable here. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support numbers are sufficient disambiugation, and this is the only notable topic titled "4 Minutes" as opposed to "Four Minutes". DAB page isn't even needed because of that and how the film is the only notable topic titled "Four Minutes". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose clearly not a reasonable difference to disambiguate on; per BarrelProof -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. As the nominator and others rightly point out, hat notes can be used to disambiguate between the two pages. Calidum T|C 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others above. Hatnotes on the top of the pages are sufficient. Also, as noted above, the dab page sounds quite unnecessary. Cavarrone 10:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the phrase is too ambiguous, and the disambiguation page contains more than just the song and the film. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 Months was once stated to be too ambiguous, and you can't oppose a primary topic on the grounds that it's not the only thing with that name - because that defeats the whole point of a primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We don't distinguish between real notability and notability. The DAB is correct where it is; There is no primary meaning, and never likely to be one although it's not impossible, and if we really want to find one there are several better candidates at the DAB in any case. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several better candidates? No there are not - if you're gonna give a reason to oppose, make sure it's actually true. Unreal7 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I heard a song on the radio this morning called, "Four Minutes" by Madonna, but the DJ didn't tell me how to spell "4/Four" so I not sure what to look up in Wikipedia... --Richhoncho (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes exist for a reason. Unreal7 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes are for when a particular term is only slightly ambiguous and a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists. If there is a very significant likelihood that when someone has used a particular string of characters they may be looking for a topic that is discussed on Wikipedia using a different string of characters, the different string needs to be considered when determining whether there is primary topic for that string of characters. As WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT says, "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." The problem is especially evident for songs, as songs are an inherently audio experience, and there is no difference in the pronunciation of "4" and "Four". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support song and dab moves; oppose film move. Madonna's song is the clear primary topic for any "Four/4 Minutes" topics, receiving 31,828 views in the last 90 days compared to 1,493 for the film and the two other topics that don't even have articles. Four Minutes should point to the Madonna song article. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting comment. It's good to see that someone looked up some statistics, and that seems pretty convincing. Regarding the remark about whether topics "don't even have articles", I refer to the above remarks that the fact that an article has a different title is not a factor. However, the fact that the article barely mentions the topic should be a factor. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2015 (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.