Talk:12 Angry Men

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vestrian24Bio 08:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

12 Angry Men (1957 film) → 12 Angry Men – The Sidney Lumet film is by far the most important subject of this title. It gets over 73% of the pageviews of all articles titled something like "Twelve Angry Men", which makes it primary topic by usage, and it is widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time nearly 70 years after release, which strongly indicates long-term significance surpassing anything else of this title. While it is an adaptation of a pre-existing story, please keep in mind that the source of the name is not determinative, and that it is not necessarily unusual for a film to be the primary topic over the work that it is based on, if the film is more significant, which is the case here. Ladtrack (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think Twelve Angry Men and 12 Angry Men is sufficient disambiguation. Either keep the status quo, or include Twelve Angry Men in the nomination. 162 etc. (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  My initial thought was that we could do this as a small details difference like Ocean's 11 and Ocean's Eleven, but if that isn't good enough then the other page should move. The only issue is the disambiguator, I'm not sure what would be best. Do you think Twelve Angry Men (story) would work? Ladtrack (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  The current Twelve Angry Men article acts as a WP:DABCONCEPT article and is likely the primary topic. The Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation) page could likely disappear altogether. I'll note once again, however, that neither of these are nominated. See WP:EXPLICIT. 162 etc. (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  A WP:DABCONCEPT would be fitting if none of the related subjects was the primary topic, but this is not the case here. One of them is substantially more important than all of the others. As for the active nominations, I have yet to include it because I am asking for your input. I have suggested a possible disambiguator, but I am unsure about it; if you think it is good, I will include it in the nomination, but if you have a better suggestion, I will nominate that instead. Ladtrack (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per 162 etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per 162 etc. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support, I think the critically acclaimed film is PRIMARY by page views and long-term significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

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. There is a clear consensus that the 1957 film is the primary topic for the title "12 Angry Men".

There is also a rough consensus that it is also the primary topic for "Twelve Angry Men". However, this consensus is less clear, and a discussion focused on that may produce a different result, so if an editor wishes to propose that Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation) is moved to Twelve Angry Men they may do so at any time.

There was considerable discussion of merging the article currently at "Twelve Angry Men" and Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) under the title Twelve Angry Men (teleplay), but the consensus for this isn't strong, and so I am finding no consensus on this question for procedural reasons, as neither of the articles under discussion were notified of the possibility of a merge. An editor may formally propose a merge at any time.

In the absence of a consensus on merging those two articles the consensus on what the article currently at "Twelve Angry Men" should be titled is also unclear, but Twelve Angry Men (story) had the most support and so I am moving it there per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Any editor may propose alternative disambiguation at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• 12 Angry Men (1957 film) → 12 Angry Men
• Twelve Angry Men → ?

– Since all the previous opposes were on the basis that I hadn't explicitly requested this page to be moved, here it is, proposed to be moved. A couple possible suggestions would be Twelve Angry Men (franchise) or Twelve Angry Men (story). To be honest, I don't love either of these, if anyone has a better disambiguator feel free to suggest it. Most of my proposal is carried on from the previous request, but just for a quick update on stats: the 1957 film now has 76% of pageviews of all articles titled something like "Twelve Angry Men" over the past five years, which is 6.6 times the next highest article and still clear of the bar required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined".

The film is also the primary topic by long-term significance. This movie is very, very widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time. It was critically acclaimed upon release and regularly shows up in lists of the best films of all time to this day, almost 70 years later. The American Film Institute ranked it as the second best courtroom drama ever, and it has been selected for preservation by the National Film Registry. It even influenced a Supreme Court justice. None of the other potential topics are nearly as important or iconic as this film.

I want to stress that a concept dab is only a good idea if none of the articles is the primary topic. If that was the case, the article currently at Twelve Angry Men would be a good choice. But that is not the case here. This film is far more important than any of the other versions of this story, more important than all the rest of them put together. For a similar example, the obvious concept dab for "The Exorcist" would be the franchise article, which covers basically major topic with that title. However, since the film is the most important topic, it is the primary topic and not the franchise article. The same thing should apply here: the film adaptation is the most important topic, so it should have the base name. Ladtrack (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Didn't we just discuss this three months ago? (and decide against it). Has anything changed (outside of Wikipedia)? Shouldn't we wait a year or two? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Typically yes, but the opposition was mostly because I hadn't requested the other page move in the proposal, which is essentially a procedural decline on WP:EXPLICIT. So I put the other page in the request this time. Also, I significantly expanded on my rationale this time, since the last one wasn't very well-written and I wasn't happy with it. If it fails again then so be it, but I still think the idea has merit and I wanted to give it a fair shot with a decent proposal. Ladtrack (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support 1. This seems to be an example of bureaucracy causing inefficiency and hurting readers in the long run. The Lumet film is clearly primary topic. It easily has the long term significance and the page views. Not a single person in the previous RM explained why the Lumet film isn't the primary topic. Twelve Angry Men is such a ridiculous primary topic that Wikinav shows that there practically the same amount of users that click from the Lumet film to Twelve Angry Men as there are that click from Twelve Angry Men to the Lumet film. It also shows that less than 4000 clicks came from external search engines. Contrast that with the Lumet film which had more than 50000 clicks from external search engines.

Also, we have Twelve Angry Men which is a broad concept article, which I'm not even sure why there is one, and we have the redundant Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation). In my view, the previous close was premature and this new discussion is appropriate. The main argument for oppose in the previous RM was that the broad concept was primary but did not have any evidence or reasoning as to why. There was talk that Twelve Angry Men needs to be discussed but the RM was closed before any substantive discussion was made on that front. If anything, the broad concept article shouldn't even exist. Per WP:BROAD, A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. This is not a concept that is abstract and the relationship between the "concepts" is not amorphous. There was a teleplay in 1954, all other "Twelve Angry Men" or "12 Angry Men", of which the Lumet film is primary topic, can be connected either directly or indirectly to that teleplay.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose the discussion has been meandering from page to page without really settling on a stable and clear outcome. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there may be a real need for the broad concept article, there are so many adaptations and riffs on this story, and the relationships are not always clear. That most of these works are adapted or derivative of the film rather than the teleplay is no small detail. For example, Twelve Angry Men (1955 play) and Twelve Angry Men (1964 play) were covered as if they're the same play in one article from 2021 until this year. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support 12 Angry Men. The film is a clear primary topic. Note that the plays were recently split and disambiguated and had previously been at Twelve Angry Men (play), so it's more like 73% headed to the film. Unclear to me if Twelve Angry Men should be moved or not, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. —BrechtBro (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose to Twelve Angry Men → Twelve Angry Men (teleplay) as inadequate disambiguation.

Support for Twelve Angry Men → Twelve Angry Men (story), and retarget the redirect to the film. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 12 Angry Men should be the Lumet film, Twelve Angry Men should be the disambiguation page. I believe the following moves would achieve this:
  • 12 Angry Men (1957 film) → 12 Angry Men
  • Twelve Angry Men → Twelve Angry Men (teleplay)Twelve Angry Men (teleplay)
  • Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation) → Twelve Angry Men
• Tevildo (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Twelve Angry Men (teleplay) is ambiguous and currently a redirect to Twelve Angry Men (Studio One), which is the likely primary topic for that title. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it could be argued that the article on the teleplay should be merged with the "Studio One" article, but I think we can agree that the resulting article shouldn't be at Twelve Angry Men. Twelve Angry Men (story) is a possibility if we're going to maintain separate articles. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Unless someone has a better idea, I think that disambiguator is the way to go. A previous discussion determined that 12 and twelve are too similar for WP:SMALLDETAILS to apply, in which case we would want "Twelve Angry Men" to redirect here. That article is generally about the story that all the adaptations share, so unless we have a better disambiguator (story) is probably the best option. It can always be changed later if necessary. Ladtrack (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  If 12 and Twelve are too similar, which makes sense as WP:ONEOTHER applies for Ocean's 11/Eleven and not here, then I support Twelve Angry Men → to either (story) or (drama), and putting a redirect at Twelve Angry Men targeted at 12 Angry Men. If there's a further discussion to be had about the story article, that can happen at that talk page or AfD etc. —BrechtBro (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I agree with Tevildo's idea for the disambiguation page. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Move Twelve Angry Men to Twelve Angry Men (1954 film) and move Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation) to Twelve Angry Men. Disambiguation is intended to assist users, not confuse them further. Who knows which uses a number and which uses a word? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you read the proposal, you'll see that I am proposing that Twelve Angry Men have a disambiguator. I don't know for sure what it should be, which is why it's left as a question mark, but it is proposed to have one. I even listed a couple possible options, and if you have a good suggestion, you're welcome to share it. Regardless, (1954 film) is a nonstarter for a couple reasons. First, there wasn't a film released in 1954, but instead a television play. Second, the Twelve Angry Men article is not about the television play, this one is. That article is about the general story, which is shared by every version, including both the television and stage plays, as well as several films, of which this one is by far the most important. Ladtrack (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misread. In that case, I oppose both as completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support the following:
  • Rename 12 Angry Men (1957 film) to 12 Angry Men
  • Merge Twelve Angry Men into Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) and rename to Twelve Angry Men (teleplay)
  • Keep Twelve Angry Men (disambiguation) as is

The Lumet film is clearly the primary topic and what the masses point to whenever one thinks of "12 Angry Men". Seeing as to how the Studio One teleplay is the source material, it's more sensical to have the page for the teleplay be the starting point for the Twelve Angry Men concept, and all later adaptations should be listed on that article. After all, that teleplay is what all later adaptations were based on. Having the current concept dab at Twelve Angry Men feels redundant given that. The disambiguation seems alright to keep, though it's the least important article to me out of the bunch here. If the rename for the Lumet film is made, a hatnote at the top of that article pointing to the disambig could be useful. Aria1561 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the best way to clean this up.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Twelve Angry Men itself will become a redirect to Twelve Angry Men (teleplay)? If so, I would Oppose this suggestion - if the primary topic is the teleplay, then it should remain at Twelve Angry Men. Tevildo (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe it would be best for it to redirect to 12 Angry Men (the Lumet film). Alternatively that could serve as the title for the disambig. Regardless, I don't believe it should redirect to the teleplay. Aria1561 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe it's procedurally appropriate to !vote on a merge in this RM, nevertheless, I'm opposed to the merge: Twelve Angry Men is legitimate WP:SPINOFF and merging it to the Studio One article would create a weighting problem; the derivative works are not all descended from the 1954 script, but are in a tree, with major works adapted from the film. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:SMALLDETAILS should not apply in this case, "twelve" and "12" are just too similar, resulting in WP:SURPRISE if the film page is moved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  This move doesn't rely on WP:SMALLDETAILS. The idea is that the page currently at Twelve Angry Men would add a disambiguator (maybe Twelve Angry Men (story) but if you have a better idea we'd love to have it) and Twelve Angry Men would redirect to the film. Ladtrack (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Library of Congress, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Law, and WikiProject New York City have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Support @Aria1561's proposal. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm again, the Lumet film will be at 12 Angry Men, Twelve Angry Men will redirect to the Lumet film, and the current Twelve Angry Men and Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) articles will be merged into one article entitled Twelve Angry Men (teleplay)? Tevildo (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It makes no sense to merge an article for an individual television episode with a broad-concept article about its script. Also it is also very unusual to have a "(teleplay)" disambiguator, same goes for having standalone articles about screenplays. And I'm not even sure why we have a broad concept article that is built around the original teleplay. Is it more notable than Rose's own screenplay for the 1957 Lumet film? From what I can find, Rose's original 1954 teleplay was never published. Only Sherman L. Sergel's adapatation of the Studio One episode as play was published (in 1955). Then Rose adapted his own script as the 1957 film's screenplay. And apparently he revised it many times after that and adapted it as a stage play in the 60s, after which it was published. Correct me if I am wrong, the differences within that context are not very clear. For example, which version is this published book? As you yourself mentioned above, there are so many adaptations and riffs on this story, and the relationships are not always clear. That most of these works are adapted or derivative of the film rather than the teleplay is no small detail. I see no reason that Rose's original 1954 teleplay be elevated as the main focus simply because it is the absolute origin. Moving the broad concept article to a title disambiguated with "(teleplay)" puts that single script as the focus, which is frankly bizarre. Because I have never seen an example where a film or television episode's script deserved its own separate article. And Twelve Angry Men is no exception, because there are many versions of that topic and each are of uncertain prominence. It certainly isn't always clear which teleplay/screenplay/play/story is the "source material" being used/referenced. In general, this whole ordeal is rather confusing, which is why I have so far decided to not vote yet and just lurk this discussion instead. Οἶδα (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

"I see no reason that Rose's original 1954 teleplay be elevated as the main focus simply because it is the absolute origin." – I struggle to see how this is a different situation from a novel, nonfiction book, or play that later has a plethora of adaptations that follow it. Obviously there are going to be adjustments made to the script for later adaptations as I'm sure the screenwriter doesn't want it to be word-for-word exactly the same as what they're going off of. Regardless, the meat and bones of the story came about as a result of the teleplay. Every adaptation follows the basis set by the teleplay, including the unique behavior and personality of each character and the major plot points (the reveal of the duplicate knife, the recreation of the old man's testimony, juror 10's racist tirade, juror 3's final demise, etc). If someone made a new adaptation, said "I based it off the Lumet film", and the events that unfold in this adaptation are identical, they would, in reality, be basing their new adaptation off the teleplay since those two are already identical. It seems pretty clear to me what the source point is for later adaptations of 12 Angry Men, even if later screenwriters aren't specifically pointing to the teleplay as their basis. If, for example, Rose decided to forego writing his script for television and instead approached Lumet to make a film first, that would be considered the source material instead. Aria1561 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this is a different situation from a novel, nonfiction book, or play that later has a plethora of adaptations that follow it.

Because in your analogy, the comparison would be simply be the television episode, not an article laser-focused on its script. I don't necessarily disagree with the points you've made. My point is only that I believe we should not have a spinoff article for a television episode's script because I have not found that the original teleplay itself is actually that notable or independent from the television episode. Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) already exists and that is the correct disambiguation for television episodes, and that episode is notable. I am not finding many examples that specifically credit the original 1954 script over the television episode. The 1955 stage adaptation written by Sherman L. Sergel states "Adapted from the Television Show of the Same Name Initially presented on STUDIO ONE, CBS-TV". The way I see it, a film and its script are not separate works but two states of the same work, one is the conceptual form, and the other its embodied realisation. We do not require two articles for that "source point". There are countless film articles and remakes/adaptations on Wikipedia. We do not divide them and their script when discussing them.

If, for example, Rose decided to forego writing his script for television and instead approached Lumet to make a film first, that would be considered the source material instead.

Yes, and the article we would have on Wikipedia would be 12 Angry Men (1957 film), not 12 Angry Men (screenplay) as a broad-concept article. Perfect Strangers (2016 film) has been remade 24 times, but that doesn't mean we should refocus the article to be about its screenplay or make a spinoff screenplay article either. Though, I was saying that I don't see an obvious solution here because clearly this is all about the broad-concept article and the aforementioned concerns that the relationships are not always clear. That most of these works are adapted or derivative of the film rather than the teleplay is no small detail. I would prefer for there to be no broad-concept article, but then people will argue that there are enough articles to warrant it. And then there's the inevitable disagreement of which article to mention specific adaptations or homages/allusions at. Though I would still probably endorse your proposal, I just wouldn't endorse the part about moving Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) to Twelve Angry Men (teleplay). And if we must have a broad-concept article, I wouldn't support merging Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) into it. Worth noting that Twelve Angry Men used to be a disambiguation page, which made more sense. See Days of Wine and Roses. Or La Femme Nikita. But if anything, a broad-concept article with the Twelve Angry Men (franchise) disambiguator originally suggested by the OP makes more sense than a broad-concept article that arbitrarily separates Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) from its script. Οἶδα (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Proposal. This discussion has gone on for the best part of a month, with no clear consensus appearing. I would suggest that this RM is closed as "No consensus", and another one started solely on the subject of the title of the Lumet film's article, without any discussion of the Twelve Angry Men article. Tevildo (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it'd be necessary to redo the whole thing. It seems to me that we've just about got a consensus for the Lumet film being the primary topic. We could just let it move to 12 Angry Men and then start an RFC on what to do with the page Twelve Angry Men, whether that be to disambiguate it or merge and rename it or whatever. Then we send the leftover redirect to the Lumet film. Ladtrack (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  That would work, if the closing admin can extract a clear consensus for the move from the above. Tevildo (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm okay with opening an AfD RE merging Twelve Angry Men and Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) but implementing the rest of the moves. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Support. The 1957 film 12 Angry Men clearly qualifies as the primary topic under Wikipedia’s guidelines. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a subject can be considered primary if it is both much more likely to be sought by readers, and of greater long-term significance than other topics with the same name. Both criteria are met here.

~2026-20962-73 (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support 12 Angry Men (1957 film) → 12 Angry Men as the clear primary topic. About Twelve Angry Men, I support Aria1561's proposal of merging Twelve Angry Men into Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) and renaming it to Twelve Angry Men (teleplay). Cavarrone 06:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)