Jump to content

Talk:Grimm Tales (play)

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

Requested move

[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: Moved. Apteva's usage stats seem to make it pretty clear that this is not the primary topic. A disambiguation page as proposed seems appropriate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Grimm TalesGrimm Tales (play) – to make way for a disambiguation page, for the four possible uses of the term (currently in the hatnote, plus this article), since the album article is much more substantial than this unreferenced article, and that the original Tales themselves are a likely target. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2012 (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.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

This appears to be a solution in search of a problem:

  • Grimm Tales has been viewed 1269 times in the last 90 days.
  • Grimm Tales (album) has been viewed 1382 times in the last 90 days.
  • Grim Tales has been viewed 4097 times in the last 90 days.
  • Grimms' Fairy Tales has been viewed 191846 times in the last 90 days.

Redirects:

  • Grimms Fairy Tales has been viewed 803 times in the last 90 days
  • Grimm's Fairy Tales has been viewed 24832 times in the last 90 days.
  • Grimm Fairy Tales has been viewed 3209 times in the last 90 days.

People appear to be finding what they are looking for just fine. Apteva (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? If you subtract 1382 from 1269, you'd get a negative result for this article. Clearly it is normal to think that people accessing the disambiguated page forms would travel through the undisambiguated title, so the album would take a portion (likely a large portion) of the results that have been assigned to this page. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, those kind of usage stats usually are used to make disambiguation primary, or replace the current article with a different article as primary, since they show that this play isn't the primary topic according to usage. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2012 (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.