Talk:How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of "needs infobox" tag[edit]

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 28 October 2013[edit]

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. 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (film) → How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck – No need for disambiguating "(film)" when unnecessary dab page gets deleted. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - film is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, thanks for bringing to RM, really that is not what the speedy deletion prod is meant to be used for, but I suspect many notable subjects are prod-deleted without editors taking the trouble. I have now added a couple of sources to How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, removed the prod notice and this tongue-twister has plentiful print notability (around 8,000 Google Book hits). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with In ictu oculi that the tongue twister is the primary topic of the term (at every capitalization). bd2412 T 16:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a much clearer case than the canonical Red Meat/Red meat example. If a reader goes through the trouble of deliberately capitalizing all those letters, it's likely he or she is looking for some sort of proper noun. Without a dab around, this is now a simple WP:TWODABS situation. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reader may go through the trouble of capitalizing the name if they believe it to be the proper name of the tongue twister. bd2412 T 20:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with BDD's excellent analysis. No more discussion of deletion or notability in the RM, please. 113.176.64.12 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC) added to neverending SPI list... In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BDD. Even with the unnecessary dab page converted to an article (for which, thanks), the capitalization in the film title appropriately distinguishes it from the tongue twister per WP:DIFFCAPS. From there the two articles can be distinguished from one another via hat notes, rather than redirecting everyone to the tongue twister.--Cúchullain t/c 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) oppose - People using uppercases would be typing for the traditional tongue twister. I don't see anybody typing proposed title for the film, now that the article about the tongue twister is created. Also, DIFFCAPS use two-word terms as an example, and I don't see long-phrased titles as an example there. George Ho (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • An RM is essentially unnecessary unless you want to make a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument. If the dab is deleted, and I think it should be, this article can move there automatically. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:BDD, I'm sorry but much as I like you, again you are disagreeing with WP:DAB - this tongue-twister was already covered by Groundhog, Internet Oracle and Bob Roberts (singer). WP:DAB relates to article content not titles. As per several previous RMs, if you disagree with WP:DAB you should initiate an RFC to change it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventhough user^ Oculi has transformed the original dab page into a stub article, this page should still be moved to How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (with a hatnote on both pages) since there's no other pages to disambiguate from except the film article requires capitalization in its title whereas the tongue twister does not. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WP:TWODABS now applies. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - per WP:CAPS, this is a line in the song, not the song title, the title is The Woodchuck Song. But it has been recorded as if it it was the title (see Amazon mp3), who are we benefiting with removing (film) from a film title when it is ambiguous, with or without caps, per User:BD2412 In ictu oculi (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even so. This article is about the 1976 film. For the tongue twister and song, see How much wood would a woodchuck chuck. And vice versa on that page. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the mp3, with CAPS In ictu oculi (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a different topic, even with a different (albeit similar) name. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misclicked the mp3 below, I meant this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:How_Much_Wood_Would_a_Woodchuck_Chuck_(film)&oldid=1202814837"