Talk:I Love New Year

	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
	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
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).

Soviet movie "The Irony of Fate"

Seems to be "inspired" by the Soviet movie The Irony of Fate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.16.211 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong release date?

The article states a release date of 30 December 2013, citing this source. But the source states "Film releases on 26th April 2013". --Stfg (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

Fill the #soundtrack table plz - Yasir72.multan ^Talk _Contribs
11:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2015

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. Consensus is against moving. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Love NY (2015 film) → I Love NY (Hindi film) – The year should not be used for this film Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the WP:MOSFILM and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) the use of years is standard practice and the nominator had not stated why this showld be an exception.--67.68.163.229 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCF. The other film with this title is here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCF and likewise the other should now be at I Love N.Y. (1987 film) In ictu oculi (talk)

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

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. (non-admin closure) kennethaw88 • talk 05:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Love NY (2015 film) → I Love NY (Bollywood film) – The year should not be used for this film for the following reason: A line in the "Release and Reception" section says: "Originally planned for release in April 2013, it was delayed on numerous occasions." Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Planned release dates are irrelevant. The film was released in 2015, so it is a 2015 film. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree for this film.Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't agree that it was released in 2015? PC78 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree.Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above and WP:NCF. Infact, you tried a very similar page move recently (above) that failed. Did you not read WP:NCF? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above & per WP:NCF - Planned releases are irrelevent anyway, Like above I'd advise the nom to read NCF. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the image?Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now the other film has been moved as well. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's been moved back. Please stop, this is borderline disruptive editing. PC78 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline disruptive editing why?Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as ridicule and disruptive. The opener should also be blocked or banned from moving pages as his undiscussed moves like the one above and many others are causing a lot of confusion and nonsense. Wikipedia:Competence is required. --Cavarrone 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done when moving a page?Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with the title "(2015 film)".Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neel.arunabh: Please don't remove part of another user's comment, this is considered bad etiquette. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PC78: I want my questions to be answered.Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with the title "(2015 film)".Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PC78: and @Davey2010: Did you notice the image?Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2016 (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 11 July 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There is a clear absence of consensus to move, and the current title is permissible under Wikipedia title policies. bd2412 T 02:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Love NY (2015 film) → ? – I had sent two move requests last year and they both failed, but I will never agree with the title "2015 film". Look at the film's image poster.Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (again) per WP:NCF. There are two films with the same title, this one was released in 2015. The other one was released in 1987, hence why we add the year to the title. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The nominator has not provided any legitimate rationale for the move. "I will never agree" and "Look at the film's poster" are not a coherent argument. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to original title of I Love New Year over redirect. Almost every source listed in the article uses I Love New Year. This will reverse an undiscussed move of August 2015 (prior to first RM above), eliminate the unnecessary qualifier and any question about the year or what NY stands for, in accordance with the MOS on abbreviations. Station1 (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neel.arunabh, you keep bring this up as if it's significant: the image of the movie reflects the planned release in 2013 and says so. So what? We disambiguate with the actual release year, not the planned release year, even if it got printed on the movie poster and dvd box. Apparently you don't have any other arguments so your proposal will not fly. As to the counter suggestion, meh. I don't see the need. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to I Love New Year, which seems to be the film's WP:COMMONNAME per sources, and would lift any ambiguity with the 1987 film and with New York. — JFG ^talk 10:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to I Love New Year per Station1 and JFG. — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lugnuts - I have a very strong suspicion Neel.arunabh is in someway related to the Bollywood/Hindi film!, Anyway Neel.arunabh carry on with these requests and I myself will take you to ANI, To keep requesting moves despite consensus is disruptive editing and is something the community (especially ANI) frowns upon!, Give up and contribute elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 17 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 January 2022

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: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Love NY (2015 film) → I Love New Year – I am first requesting a move unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#I Love NY (2015 film). I Love New Year is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME per the CBFC certificate and many sources and per Born2cycle's advice at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 June#Konchem Ishtam Konchem Kashtam, and I Love N.Y. (1987 film) should simply be at I Love N.Y. (film). Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two films of same name with year as disambig makes sense.Slywriter (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter The correct name of this film is I Love New Year. In all other contexts, including the 1987 film, N.Y. is used for New York. This film is about New Year, not about New York. See JFG's comment in the above RM: move to I Love New Year, which seems to be the film's WP:COMMONNAME per sources, and would lift any ambiguity with the 1987 film and with New York. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, the correct article name is the one that best conforms to WP:AT. These arguments do find some support there, but are not the whole picture. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I Love New Year is a good natural disambiguation for the 2015 film. But the name I Love NY remains ambiguous, so the article on the 1987 film still needs disambiguation. It's a common misconception that a title is available if no other article uses it. In fact the requirement is that there's no other article that could use the title. So I Love NY (film) remains ambiguous and is not an available title for the article on the 1987 film. Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Andrewa's rationale. 1987 film should be disambiguated regardless. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I Love NY is the title of the 2015 film, not "I Love New Year". However, since I Love NY redirects to I Love New York and all other topics in I Love New York (disambiguation) relate to New York state or NYC, the film deserves and gets a hatnote at I Love New York based on the redirect. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. After looking at the number of Google hits for both titles (it's about 4:3 for "I Love New Year" (e.g. "Kangana" "I Love New Year"), although a good read of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION tells me that even if it's less but substantial, then it could still qualify) I have changed my vote. Best of luck, Facts707 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Amazon Prime lists the title of this movie as "I Love New Year" so that's good enough for a natural disambiguation to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (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.