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: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Public Enemy (band) → Public Enemy
• Public Enemy → Public Enemy (disambiguation)

– This seems like the main subject for "Public Enemy" (capital P, capital E, with no article). We have three articles with that name: a 2002 Korean film, a Belgian TV series, and this article. Other items in the disambiguation page are lowercase, "The" Public Enemy, plural, or about subjects we don't have articles about. Both the movie and the TV show are English translations, but even if they weren't, this still seems like the main subject. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the usage is much more likely (it gets about 37x as many pageviews as either of the others) and it has long-term significance being widely considered immensely influential/important in hip hop, American music, 20th century music, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - WP:NOPRIMARY and no benefit to be gained from intentionally adding ambiguity. -- Netoholic @ 02:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Looking at pageviews, this looks to be primary even considering lowercase usage. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looking at pageviews backs up the nom's assertion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Pageviews going back several years supports the nom's assertion. --HugoHelp (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear primary topic, by both usage and long term significance, for the title case name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all the above. Fight the power! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not convinced band only sticks out if removing Public Enemies (2009 film) from consideration. Still rather too generic, and (band) is not a mark of shame on a band article. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't actually need to remove that one, because there is no universe in which it is a potentially competing title for the name "Public Enemy."--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, i don't think caps is enough to DAB in this case, and (band) at the end helps the average user disambiguate better.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Any user bothering to capitalize both words is almost certainly looking for this article. This is the epitome of a primary topic for this particular title. The opposition doesn’t seem to understand and appreciate the benefit of taking users directly to the articles they’re searching for rather than making them wade through dozens of entries on a godforesaken dab page. —В²C ☎ 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Capitalisation is a terrible disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is capitalization a terrible disambiguator? Do you disagree with DIFFCAPS? “The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for.” In this case if someone types “Public Enemy“ (both caps) in the search box don’t you agree they are most likely looking for this article? —-В²C ☎ 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While I certainly support DIFFCAPS, I'm not sure if its sufficient to allow the capitalized term to go to a different article, Friendly fire/Friendly Fire seems to work best, maybe move the band up the DAB if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like "I support alphabetization, but only when it doesn't use the alphabet". The only reason Friendly Fire is a disambiguation page is because there's no main topic for that capitalization. So the relevant question here is whether this Public Enemy is the main topic for capital-P capital-E Public Enemy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No the're completely different things, one thing is not having a primary redirect to the general concept and another is having a different topic at the Title Case version. I completely agree that the general concept isn't primary for the title case version but I'm not sure the band is so it might be best to keep the Title Case version as a DAB. Just because Portland, Oregon isn't the primary topic for "Portland" doesn't mean that Portland, Maine has to be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Netoholic. In addition, the group are named for the concept, which is properly at the top of the da page currently arrived at. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And how exactly is this different from the standard example of how we do things at WP:DIFFCAPS: Iron maiden and Iron Maiden? (responding to Cambial Yellowing, but really applicable to several opposes here) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You may recognise that the concept should not be capitalised. Well done. The point here is that most readers will neither recognise the significance of the difference nor whether the concept should or should not be capitalised: in fact they are not even thinking about either. Unknown unknowns make for an awful disambiguator, as Necrothesp has pointed out. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So it sounds like it's not different from Iron maiden/Iron Maiden; you just don't agree with WP:DIFFCAPS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't sound like that at all. That's just you grossly misrepresenting the argument I made because you think it will help you win support. It won't. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... ok then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Most of the oppose arguments aren't really arguments either. -- Calidum 02:55, 7 September 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.