Talk:Room 13 (Wallace novel)

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 26 December 2020[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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move, and put the dab at base. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Room 13 (novel) → Room 13 (Edgar Wallace novel) – The topic described under Room 13 is also a novel. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move not controversial and not the primary topic anyway[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per consistency and WP:NCBOOKS, the author's full name isn't used. Should be "(Wallace novel)" instead. George Ho (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See, that's why I like to take the safer way through an RM discussion. Thanks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. What's seems obvious to one person can seem obviously wrong to another. Station1 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The actual qualifier is the only thing that can realistically be debated here, the issue of if this requires further disambiguation can't realistically be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although a move doesn't hurt anything, it's not really necessary either. We could just put a hatnote on this article for the rare reader who wants the children's novel but winds up here accidentally. But if it is moved, "Wallace novel" is better than "Edgar Wallace novel" per WP:CONCISE, although redirects from both are just as good. Station1 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Station1, your contributions to RM this year have come to the point when you really should be taken to ANI and banned from participation in RMs as a WP:COMPETENCE issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is a move not really necessary??? Both the current primary topic and this topic are novels so it doesn't make any sense to have one at the base name and one disambiguated with "novel". Even if you wanted to argue this should be a PDAB it obviously wouldn't work since someone typing Room 13 (novel) would per the views be more likely to be looking for the Robert Swindells novel. Per IIO below there's possibly no primary topic at all given although the current primary topic gets the most it only gets around 50% of views but that's a different discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really necessary because the current title causes no problem. Why would anyone looking for the far more popular Swindells novel be searching for "Room 13 (novel)" when they could search for the more concise and much more intuitive "Room 13"? But let's suppose a handful of readers do exactly that. The simpler solution would be to add a {{distinguish}} hatnote to this article. But to be clear, I'm not opposing the proposal, since it would make virtually no difference, just agreeing with the previous commenter that policy and guidelines suggest using surnames rather than full names in cases like this. Station1 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would readers who use this term be more likely to be looking for this one than the other one? Even if most use the plain name. By the same logic should Soulby, Dacre be moved to Soulby, Cumbria because most people looking for the more far more important one would just type "Soulby" or should Skegby, Bassetlaw be moved to Skegby, Nottinghamshire because most people looking for the far more important one would just type "Skegby"? Or move Parachutes (Frank Iero and the Patience album) to Parachutes (album) because more people looking for the Coldplay album might just type "Parachutes" or Parasite (1982 film) move to Parasite (film) etc. It makes no sense to put a less important topic at a qualified title when the qualifier applies to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree readers searching for "Room 13 (novel)" are not more likely to be looking for this book than the other one, but that's not the point. The point is that very few readers are searching for anything using "Room 13 (novel)" (after all, this article gets only 6 views per day total, only a fraction of whom come via a direct search). For that fraction who might land on Room 13 (novel) but want the Swindells novel, a hatnote would work just as well as sending them to a dab page. A title change neither helps nor hurts anyone. Station1 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is renamed, then "Room 13 (novel)" should be redirected to the dabpage. That's what I would like it to be. --George Ho (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to go to the Robert Swindells if that stays at the base name or otherwise the DAB if there is no primary topic however given the move will break links it would be fine (at least temporarily) to point to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously speedy move the only issue is whether there is a WP:PT. look page views say no, based on this propose move Room 13 (disambiguation) to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The monthly pageviews show that Room 13 is by far the most viewed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: how is "most viewed" relevant? The guidelines state that an article must achieve a substantial majority of all meanings combined, i.e. 60%+ of all pages. But here when the two Room 13 films based on the 1924 Room 13 novel and the Black Flag song are included the children's book is not getting even half of reader attention. [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Room_13_(film)%7CRoom_13_(novel)%7CRoom_13%7CRoom_13_International%7CEverything_Went_Black include the Black Flag album with "Room 13" on it and every other Room 13 is dwarfed. This is classic WP:NOPRIMARY territory. @Crouch, Swale: @George Ho: do those page views suggest there's a long term encyclopaedic primary here? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would weakly support a no primary topic move, it depends how many people are looking for the song with this term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the monthly pageviews, this is still the case (pointwise at least). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually statistics indicate usage. In this case, I took out one album that isn't titled "Room 13". As I can indicate, "Room 13" is the most-visited page. However, that's just the most-visited page, especially this year. The stats can tell us which page(s) users visited, but long term encyclopaedic primary is not limited to statistics. Stats are not indicators of long-term historical significance, and stats can vary. BTW, I made some changes to the dabpage. George Ho (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the guideline does not state that "an article must achieve a substantial majority of all meanings combined, i.e. 60%+ of all pages." That's something pulled out of the air. The guideline says "more likely than all the other topics combined". Station1 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, you re-punctuated my sentence adding " " to make it appear that I was misquoting. I was explaining so that you could understand what the guideline said, learn and then follow in RM discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted you verbatim. That is the purpose of quotation marks. What you said the guideline says is not what the guideline says. Station1 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Room 13 (disambiguation) → Room 13, both books should be disambiguated further as per pageview stats above, and DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.