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: no consensus. This has been sat in the backlog for several weeks now and I think it's pretty apparent that, with the votes roughly split and good, policy/guideline-based arguments both in favour and in opposition, there is no consensus to rename the article. Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sette note in nero → The Psychic – per WP:UE and WP:NCF#Foreign-language films. As confirmed by the poster appended to the article, this Italian feature was marketed, distributed and reviewed in the English-speaking world under the title The Psychic. Although the 2013 exchange ["Italian titles vs English titles"], above, postulates that the main title header should display the Italian title because there are multiple English-language titles, a search of film listings in newspapers across the English-speaking world, only finds "The Psychic" as a title which was released for public exhibition and on DVD. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)

• Support. Roman Spinner is correct. This film is only known under 1 English title, and that is The Psychic. That is also how it is marketed on DVD in every English speaking country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The majority of the sources used list the original title (Sette note in nero); the use of The Psychic is much narrower. The alternate title does not strike me as common enough in reliable sources to overturn the use of the original. GRAPPLE ^X 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google Books shows here that results seem to go back and forth. The Washington Post reviewed it in 1979 as The Psychic as seen here. Not really sure which way to go, but at minimum, I would suggest mentioning The Psychic in the lead section's opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As per IMDb, websites film.thedigitalfix.com film.thedigitalfix.com, www.youtube.com, www.mondo-digital.com, www.grindhousedatabase.com, www.blu-ray.com, oblo.com, wiki.tarantino.info, and so on. The english speaking simply take the box title as name. --Robertiki (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, several of these sources are user-generated and none would pass muster for WP:RS; meanwhile scholarly print sources, the British Film Institute and AllMovie all list it under Sette note in nero. GRAPPLE ^X 23:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've checked multiple sources and this film is only known in English-speaking countries as The Psychic. I seriously doubt any English speaking film enthusiasts refer to this film by an Italian title, unless they are elitist.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't imagine you've checked very hard, as there are multiple English-language sources in the article itself which refute this. GRAPPLE ^X 19:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the sources are there, no question; but, who read's them ? many ? elitists ? Let us take a look at the dvd box: I don't read "Sette note in nero", so what ? In English-speaking countries, the poor man takes the title from the box, so explain us, how would he take another title ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Reliable sources before casting personal attacks; reading sources is the core of how our articles are written here. GRAPPLE ^X 00:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it seemed a personal attack, it was not my intention. Anyway I don't understand your point, pointing to WP:Reliable sources: what should I read ? --Robertiki (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part where they're a necessary component of any sound article; not something you can dismiss as "elitist". GRAPPLE ^X 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree with Erik - multiple uses of different titles, but nothing that points one way or the other. The BFI lists it as the Italian title, for example. Unless there's plenty of RS to point to the English title, then default to no move. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about English-speaking readers that have been puzzled by the article not mentioning the cover title. --Robertiki (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:ENGLISH: "If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead." Based on my search (explained above), The Psychic is not "demonstrably more common" than Sette note in nero. Furthermore, WP:DIVIDEDUSE says, "When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version." Furthermore, if there is no move, I would recommend for the film poster to be replaced with the Italian-language version (e.g., this). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  See search results in Google Books using the keywords "Sette note in nero"|"The Psychic" "Lucio Fulci" here for your own assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. The only reason to retain the Italian title is if there was no clear English title, or it was very obscure. Neither is the case. The film was mainly marketed as "The Psychic" in English speaking countries (as evidenced by the main image in the article), and that's what we should call it.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:DIVIDEDUSE The History of Italian Cinema Gian Piero Brunetta - 2009 "There were other films worth remembering as well: Fulci's Sette note in nero (Murder to the Tune of Seven Black Notes; The Psychic; or Seven Notes in Black, 1977)" In ictu oculi (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:UE. Use is divided, but it's between a widely used English title and a widely used non-English title. The spirit of the guideline is to use the title English-speaking readers are most likely to encounter and recognize in the real world; the only way that would be "Sette note in nero" is if that was substantially more common in English language sources (as happens in many cases). That's not true here: "The Psychic" Fulci gets 668 hits on Google Books, compared to 661 for "Sette note in nero"; it's worth noting that some results for the latter are Italian and thus not relevant here. According to WP:DIVIDEDUSE, if there's no one common name, "Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article". In this case, the well established English title would be a better fit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cúchullain Homunq (࿓) 14:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per GRAPPLE, Erik and In ictu oculi JuniorFan88 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC) — JuniorFan88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is this is your first edit in Wikipedia ? (red user and talk page). If so, this is not a vote. Please explain why you agree with one or the other reasoning. --Robertiki (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Look, this isn't clear-cut and The Psychic is widely used enough such that I don't have any policy/MOS based objections against such a move, but it does seem the film has been released under several titles in the English-language, which makes me question the wisdom of the move. It appears the first English title was Murder to the Tune of Seven Black Notes according to IMDB and The Psychic is a "new title". Either way, the British Film Institute acknowledges both titles. It has also had two other English titles if IMDB is correct: Seven Notes in Black and Death Tolls Seven Times (although IMDB is not RS and the BFI does not list either of these). Allmovie lists them all except Death Tolls Seven Times. Given the inconsistency here this is obviously not a straight choice between a foreign title and a standardised English title i.e. À bout de souffle/Breathless, which has played into my decision to oppose the move. It seems sensible to me to follow the lead set by the BFI, Allmovie and IMDB and stick with the original native title and list the alternative English ones in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Other Move instead to Seven notes in black, the literal translation which has also been used quite frequently. Lyrda (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2017 (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.

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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

The Psychic (1977 film) → Sette note in nero – The above discussion related to this page's title did not result in any consensus to move the page, yet without any further discussion the page was moved on July 5th anyway. I am requesting that this cavalier move be reverted and the proper use of consensus be respected. GRAPPLE ^X 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Comment. WP:Consensus may change, even in the space of a few months, considering the arguments within the previous discussion contending in favor of the English-language title. However, I'm certain everyone would at least agree that the parenthetical qualifier is unnecessary [unless someone creates an article for one or more of the various TV series episodes titled "The Psychic"], but, as of this writing, The Psychic redirects to The Psychic (1977 film). But as far as the English-language title, The Psychic, is concerned, it is the only title under which this film has been marketed, distributed, reviewed and issued on DVD in the English-speaking world and, as pointed out in the previous discussion above, by Robertiki, English-language film websites refer to it as The Psychic. The only Italian titles which remain in their original form in the English-speaking world are short, simple, straightforward ones such as La Strada, La Dolce Vita, La Notte, L'Avvenura or L'Eclisse. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a matter of consensus changing--this is a case of consensus being ignored without further discussion; essentially an argument was lost and teddy was thrown from the pram regardless. Without a clear consensus for the move to the current title the article should not have been moved. GRAPPLE ^X 14:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if the talk page of an article already contains a "Requested move" section with !votes, then any future title changes need to go through an RM process. Since the previous discussion was closed as no consensus, the topic should certainly be reopened within a year or two, but four-and-a-half months after the March 1 close is perhaps too soon for a new RM discussion. My Oppose, which I will strike-over and replace with Comment was cast in initially perceiving this process as the start of such a new discussion, rather than as a request for the reversal of an undiscussed move. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and speedy close. As there was a formal RM that came to a particular conclusion, it should not have been moved without a new consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and close per Cuchullain and Grapple. An undiscussed, controversial move. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revert of unilateral move after recent RM discussion closed with no consensus. Nothing prevents readers from finding this article through searching for "The Psychic". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:41, 15 July 2017 (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.