Talk:One Two Three

	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 Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Remove character descriptions

The character descriptions don't have citation and really do not belong in a encyclopaedia thegeorgeous 05:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgeorge22 (talk • contribs)

Requested move 16 April 2020

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: With an equal number of supports and opposes and reasonable arguments being made by both, the result is no consensus b uidhe 21:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Two Three → One Two Three (2008 film) – Restore the year. Hindi film barely known in English sources, "film One Two Three" in Google Books all refer to the 1961 Billy Wilder film. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. b uidhe 05:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (strongly) per nom. There is no clear primary topic for this name, and if there was, it definitely wouldn't be this film. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Similar to the 35 Fifty-Fifty 50/50 variations at the Fifty-Fifty disambiguation page, the 32 entries at the 1-2-3 disambiguation page represent challenges for users concerned with WP:SMALLDIFFS. The 1-2-3 dab page has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and, while the films One, Two, Three and One Two Three are the only Wikipedia main title headers that bear those exact forms, as of this writing, the form One two three is a redirect to the 1-2-3 dab page and One, two, three is a redlink. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation is unneeded. Elizium23 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary. There are good hatnotes on both films, so there's no obvious problem, and if anything, this one would be primary. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By what measure Station1 would this Hindi film be 66% of uses over the Billy Wilder film? Are you saying you want the Billy Wilder film moved to One Two Three (1961 film)? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. That would be equally as unnecessary. Right now, each of the two films are at their respective best titles (according to sources in each article), which are not in conflict. There are hatnotes in place for readers who land on one film but actually want the other. Those hatnotes serve those readers at least as well as, and probably better than, landing on the dab page would serve them. So there is absolutely no problem here that needs any kind of solution. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A line call in many ways but the current setup of titles and hatnotes along with the DAB at 1-2-3 is quite acceptable IMO. The American film has some moments of pure genius, just BTW, or maybe it's just my poor taste. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I think it better disambiguates the film, which probably isn't even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. One Two Three should probably redirect to 1-2-3.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. I note the clear absence of sources and information as to why your proposal should be given more weight. Azuredivay (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is also One Two Three / The Matenrō Show, the first part of which is ambiguous to this title. BD2412 T 00:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That one is getting only around 2% of the views of this article.[1] - Station1 (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2020 (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.

Still no primary

15:03, 21 August 2012‎ Bovineboy2008 talk contribs‎ m 118 bytes 0‎ Bovineboy2008 moved page Talk:One Two Three (2008 film) to Talk:One Two Three: per WP:PRECISION undothank

level-pegging on page views In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]