Talk:What Men Want (1930 film)

Page title change[edit]

I propose changing the name of this article to What Men Want (1930 film) to better distinguish it from the 2019 film, since most people on Wikipedia nowadays will be looking for the latter when typing it in. I'm not saying we should also change the page title of the 2019 movie, but it certainly appears a disambiguation is warranted. Songwaters (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can kick off a WP:RM discussion. I'm not quite sure where I stand. The 2019 film will be briefly popular, but it seems too premature to rearrange article titles because of that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Clear consensus is that the 1930 film is not the primary topic of this title (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Men Want → What Men Want (1930 film) – To better distinguish it from the 2019 film, since most people on Wikipedia now (and probably in the future) will be looking for the latter when typing it in. Songwaters (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is a WP:TWODABS situation, with no other entries to build a separate DAB page upon. As such, Creating a DAB won't get readers to the new film any faster, and preference for primary should be given to the long-term significance of the 90-year old film over the recent one. -- Netoholic @ 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Netoholic. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The 1930 film appears to be obscure and cannot be regarded as a primary topic simply because it is old. With regards to WP:NOPRIMARY & WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, long-term significance for the 1930 film is somewhat dubious, whereas usage (comparing pageviews from the last six months) is fairly unequivocal. PC78 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The 1930 film got roughly 3 hits a day in 2018 and has 18 votes on IMDB. I really don't think it has any claim to be the primary topic based on supposed "significance", which I've seen no evidence of. If anything, I'd be inclined to support putting the 2019 film at the base name, simply because it's bound to beat the 1930 film in pageviews by a fair amount for quite a while (although admittedly, it's probably too soon to make such a statement). Nohomersryan (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Nohomersryan. There's no strong claim to being the primary topic based on page views or sustained coverage, and it is not unlikely that the 2019 film will likely sustain far-greater views moving forward. For now, moving the 1930 film away from the base title is appropriate -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article averaged 8 views per day last year[1]. This year it's gone from under 50 to well over 300 as of yesterday (8 Feb)[2]. Meanwhile What Men Want (2019 film) has gone from 2,000 hits/day to over 16,000[3]. It's obvious the 2019 film is the overwhelming WP:primary topic and that roughly 90% of the men (and women) now landing on What Men Want want the new film. It should be moved to the base name as soon as the handful of wikilinks directed here can be cleaned up. Station1 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pure WP:RECENTISM. Most people get here via search engines, and those do not care (or even active ignore) our page titles because they instead use keywords and context. In ten years time, is anyone going to claim they know for sure this film will continue to get that many views? Temporary boosts in views should never be used as justification for a move. -- Netoholic @ 23:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I will claim to know that for sure. Or, well, at least I'm 99% sure. (Not really about whether the spiked pageviews because of the release will continue, just that if you were to move the pages now, it'd likely hold up over time.) If you look at any random romantic comedy from 2009 that was theatrically released, they almost always get at least 100 views a day. But that's a bit vague, so let's have a look at the other films by Adam Shankman, the guy who directed this What Men Want movie. Lucky me, they all fit inside of one pageviews analysis. [4] As you can see, most of these movies are at least a decade old. The lowest one there, Bringing Down the House, was released 16 years ago, doesn't appear especially fondly regarded, and still gets 29 times the daily page views of this 1930 What Men Want movie. So yes, I think there's solid evidence to suggest this movie won't crater to below 8 views a day in a decade's time. But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here... Nohomersryan (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A temporary spike as one would expect from a new film should not dominate over long-term best interests of the encyclopedia. If page views (even very large bumps) were the only factor and we stopped evaluating long-term significance (did I mention this is a 90-year old film we're talking about here?), then we wouldn't even need an RM process as such could moves could be automated based on the page view stats. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The statement "Most people get here via search engines, and those do not care (or even active ignore) our page titles because they instead use keywords and context" is absolutely correct, but that applies to almost all page moves. Titles don't affect the vast majority. But in this case, the number of people landing on "What Men Want" has spiked from 8 per day to 174 yesterday. Therefore approximately 166 people were surprised to be on a page where they didn't want to be. That number will go down, but still a small but significant number will be on the "wrong" article for the foreseeable future. The original comment that "Creating a DAB won't get readers to the new film any faster" is also correct. If the 2019 film is not moved to "What Men Want", there's no real benefit to a move. Station1 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moving the 2019 is not part of this move request. I think you aren't the only one misinterpreting that. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not a misinterpretation. We're not a bureaucracy, so if discussion leads to a closing admin agreeing that there is a consensus based on policy to move the 2019 film to the plain title, it would be perfectly appropriate to do so. If not, an RM at the 2019 film could be started immediately after cleaning up incoming wikilinks. Station1 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "recentism" argument would seem a lot more pertinent if this were a discussion about making the new film the primary topic; that isn't the case, it's about saying that the older film isn't the primary topic, and I'm struggling to see how you can argue against that. PC78 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some editors are suggesting that the 2019 film should be made primary, even though that's not part of the original request. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed they are, but your opposition clearly goes further than that. :) PC78 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are correct that I did not mention making the 2019 film primary. But after reading this, I would support that; the 1930 film may be 90 years old, but that doesn't make it more noteworthy than the newer film and therefore more deserving of being the primary article. It's clear that going forward, the 2019 film will be the more well-known film. Songwaters (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        And there is the WP:CRYSTALBALL. For all we know, this film could flop and in 10 years be a forgotten footnote. Stop guessing how things will be. --Netoholic @ 18:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the 2019 film has opened at #2,[5] and is a remake of a very noteworthy film. But future foreseeing notwithstanding, this is about adding (1930 film) to the title of this film to better distinguish it, since no evidence has been provided that the 1930 film has any more significance than the 2019 film. So even though I would support make the 2019 film the base title, that is not the purpose of this talk. Songwaters (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We need not consider what will happen 10 years from now. WP is dynamic, and if things change, we can change. Right now, approximately 2,000 times as many people are interested in the new film as the old film. If things change in a few months, never mind 10 years, we can move it back. Station1 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per obviousness. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCFILM and WP:NOPRIMARY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (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.