Talk:Fortunata (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 Italian cinema task force.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 18 May 2017

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.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (2017 Italian film) → Fortunata (film) – "Lucky" is nothing more than a literal translation. The title for English-speaking audiences is Fortunata. Lucky was originally proposed as the English language title but no longer is. The official Cannes lineup can be found here. A user called Lugnuts will oppose this move, but that's only because he dislikes me. Please ignore his vote. Thanks. — Film Fan 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per this and this change by Kerlykew (talk · contribs). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I didn't predict that at all. Cannes is more up-to-date than Cineuropa. — Film Fan 13:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please stop with your constant personal attacks. And now you're stalking my edits. too. Unbelievable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have never and will never stalk your edits. I've edited Cannes titles recently because it's kinda this big thing that's happening right now, and, you know... my username and all that. Also, these are not personal attacks. — Film Fan 23:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think what Lugnuts objects to (what many would object to) is being called out by name in the nomination statement before ever participating in the debate, and instructing everyone to ignore them if they do participate. You should probably refrain from that sort of thing. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in English. Google News turns up next to no English results for Fortunata; there are some for Lucky. [1] [2]. In time the film will have a wider release and more English media coverage, and there may be a shift to Fortuna; for now it can be kept at the stable title. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews are calling the film [3][4][5][6][7][8] The links you have given are old. The common name is Fortunata, and the official title is Fortunata, Ribbet32 (talk · contribs), Kerlykew (talk · contribs). I hope you reconsider. — Film Fan 09:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of those reviews don't seem to be of the greatest notability. This RM still feels a bit premature to me. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ribbet32 - EVERY English language review calls the film Fortunata. Every outlet except Cineuropa now has the title at Fortunata. The Cannes site calls it that, the press kit has it as that, etc. Only OLD sources call the film Lucky. Fortunata is BY FAR the common name. How am I failing to communicate this? Like many foreign films (Amour, Le Cercle Rouge, Y Tu Mamá También, La Cérémonie, El Sur, Les Anarchistes, Mia Madre, etc.) since the foreign title is easily understood by most English audiences, they decided to use the original title for English audiences. There is zero reason for this article to be incorrectly titled "Lucky". — Film Fan 23:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbet32 Kerlykew Lugnuts— Film Fan 21:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the responses. — Film Fan 09:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaanyone else want to weigh in? This could hardly be a more obvious decision. — Film Fan 19:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually support this move, as in Italy, the film is probably known more as "Fortunata". 76.116.198.27 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct vote, incorrect reason. — Film Fan 07:40, 12 June 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.

Requested move 6 September 2017

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 DrStrauss talk 17:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (2017 Italian film) → Fortunata (film) – "Lucky" is nothing more than a literal translation. The title in the English-speaking world is Fortunata, as evidenced by all of the reviews.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] — Film Fan 11:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed. Only the need for the title to be corrected. Fortunata is the WP:COMMONNAME by far. What happened to your support vote, In ictu oculi? — Film Fan 17:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom and the case made for the films name, and per IMBD title (incorrectly linked as Lucky). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The evidence suggests that Fortunata is the common name in English sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:03, 13 September 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.

Requested move 12 December 2017

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: not moved. The support !votes have not conclusively established the asserted primary topic, and the oppose side makes persuasive arguments in regard to recentism. (non-admin closure) James (^talk/_contribs) 23:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

Fortunata (film) → Fortunata
Fortunata → Fortunata (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No other Wikipedia articles have a real claim to this title. Most of the disambig items don't have articles, and likely never would, since they're minor fictional characters. Two historical figures, Maria Fortunata d'Este and Maria Fortunata Viti, are both known as Maria according to their respective articles. The two red links with potential to rival this film are Saint Fortunata, with little long-term significance with 90 hits on Google Books, or Fortunata by Marjorie Patterson with 1,700 hits, as opposed to the film with 3,180 hits on Google News Ribbet32 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and hatnote to the disambig page, incase anyone was searching for this term. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC — Film Fan 10:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Primary topic by first long term criteria is Fortunata (name). The film's lead character is someone with the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no other articles at Fortunata, apart from the disambig page. For example, if there was a more notable person or place, then the film would stay where it is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this move proposal effectively necessitates a separate Fortunata (name) article, in order to have a name dictionary ref source. Under normal circumstances a creative work named after the lead character does not usually have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than" the name itself. To make that case we'd have to argue that the original virgin martyr is obscure (yes) and that the work is of substantially greater enduring notability and educational value - I'm not convinced. If it was a Hollywood film named Fortunata would probably be agreeing. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look through GBooks, the more Fortunatas in literature and history I see. This is not a natural primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If it was a Hollywood film named Fortunata would probably be agreeing" - That's some pretty ignorant and extreme systemic bias. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is another classic personal attack from Ribbet32 In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a neutral and indisputably true evaluation of that comment, a WP:SPADE. I'd stand by that assessment. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is tangential to the topic. The film might garner primary topic if it wins best picture at some of the major awards, but as of now it's a common enough word that primary belongs to its original meaning. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per In ictu oculi's comments and research. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Receives 89.3% of all page views,[16] including the dab page, and *98.7%* without it.[17] That strongly implies that views hitting the dab page are mostly looking for the film. And frankly, it's the only one of the topics on the dab page that's both (1) actually called just "Fortunata", and (2) really notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as blatant WP:RECENTISM. If there were a primary topic, it would be Fortunata (name). I assumed this is a Hollywood film, thus would still disagree that some movie a few months old is magically the primary topic for a name with millennia of history, including a Christian saint and plenty of previous creative works with more historical impact. Pageviews analysis is completely meaningless for recent pop-culture material. If this still dominates pages views in 2022, then maybe its got a WP:PRIMARY claim. Maybe. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – No obvious WP:PT apart from WP:RECENTISM — JFG ^talk 11:43, 16 December 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.