Talk:Apocalypse Trilogy

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to Apocalypse (film series) to bring it inline with the naming convention pertaining to film series. Let's discuss. - LA @ 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Please state whether or not you support the renaming of this article.

• Oppose - The name of this admitted loose trilogy is pretty ambiguous to start with, and the proposed move would further muddy things. I suggest a move to something more precise, such as Apocalypse (John Carpenter film trilogy) or more in line with the convention, Apocalypse (John Carpenter film series) . — WiseKwai 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm at a loss to understand why the proposal isn't to rename as Apocalypse Trilogy (film series), which seems more in line with referenced guidelines. I don't really agree with earlier opposition remark that introduction of Carpenter's name into the proposal would be beneficial. I do agree, however, with the observation that this "trilogy" can only be loosely understood as such. It's unclear how this lack of formality impacts the proposal, though. D. Brodale 14:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it simple (rename) per LA. Apocalypse (film series) is accurate and to the point. If you look at the naming convention, the only need for further disambiguation is if two series are produced in the same year. And why trilogy? What if there's another related film made down the road some time? And why should the title of the article reflect the number of films in the series? Brevity is the soul of wit. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - re: "Why Trilogy?" Because it appears Carpenter specifically refers to this film sequence as such. If so, it seems best not to monkey with the naming for the sake of brevity or anything else. D. Brodale 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.