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 at this time. We have a sort of three-way standoff here. Some editors support the proposed primary topic designation; some support a page move, but with the disambiguation page at this title; and some appear to oppose any change (although it is not clear). Either way, there is not a single solution with a consensus of support, so I would suggest setting this aside for a few weeks, then returning to the question with a specific proposal to disambiguate the page. In the interim, I have begun Draft:The Face of Love (1954 film) for the 1954 BBC film, which will provide a useful additional data point. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Face of Love (film) → The Face of Love
• The Face of Love → The Face of Love (album)

– Based on page view stats from 1st July 2015 to present[1] the film gets the vast majority of page views, pulling in a daily average of 212 views compared to just 8 for the album, and on no occasion during this period does the album receive more views than the film. Top Google hits[2] are all for the film. The film may be the more recent of the two, but it's clearly the more popular and most likely search term. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt. solution of having The Face of Love as the disambig page. I won't oppose PC78's suggestion, but I'd prefer this, based on the size and content of both articles. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. solution as @Lugnuts: but of having The Face of Love redirect to Face of Love disambig page. Flips between two subjects on the baseline, going from one ambiguous title to deliberately ambiguating another, aren't a good idea and this will disable the dab-bot. And no subject can claim the second part of WP:PRIMARY here. And there are all 5 sections of WP:CRITERIA to consider as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation. No need for the dab page; hat notes will work even better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for creation of a disambiguation page, per Lugnuts and In ictu oculi, while conceding that the nomination also presents a valid argument. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As so often it turns out a WP:TWODABS isn't really a two dabs, there's a BBC TV film of the same title. The Face of Love (disambiguation) redirects to Face of Love dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after you created the redirect the other day and added the TV film. You've also messed up the formatting on the dab page. The only article that mentions the TV film is Laurence Payne, which you also added with no source. At any rate, there remain only two articles called "The Face of Love".--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well one would have to blame the BBC for making the 1954 Shakespeare TV film. And blame any editor for listing it on a dab page. I have however added a source to the Peter Cushing filmography (which already mentioned the 1954 film) which records the exception made to BBC rules for Cushing as a film actor who was paid 74 guineas. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - There is Faces of Love, a French film. George Ho (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Of the two topics presented, The Face of Love (film) is clearly primary. However, the mention of two other topics means that this is no longer a TWODABS situation, and it is not clear whether here is an overall primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The BBC film is so not notable that it doesn't even have a WP page, so this film is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I note that at least some here supporting an alternate "solution" (make it a dab page) are not arguing that this film is not primary, but because they don't agree with the fundamental WP principle of primary topic in title decision-making. They should be clear about invoking WP:IAR to ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and why, because that's what they're doing. Such arguments should be weighed accordingly... not much. --В²C ☎ 03:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Support original proposal. The film already distinguishes itself from the French film Faces of Love. Also, it's more popular than the Christian-themed album itself. Reading the film article, the film might not have significance. The reviews were mixed, and the plot seems... I don't know how to describe how weird it is, given that I've not yet watched the film. Of course, neither significance nor usage is absolute, but usage criterion would be best for readers. B2C is spot on about how to be clear about arguments and that WP:IAR should have been mentioned. Alternatively, they should read WP:PAG#Adherence or WP:GUIDES, saying to make some exceptions and use "common sense". I've not seen much "common sense" lately, and I don't think IAR applies. Let's go for "usage" criterion instead for now. George Ho (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. It's not a two-dab situation, and the disambig page was not mentioned in the proposal. Just another primarytopic grab, where a disambig page would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 9 February 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.