Talk:Room at the Top (1959 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Room at the Top (1959 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:268414.1010.A.jpg[edit]

Image:268414.1010.A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested multi-page 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, except for the 2012 film. The page views to show PRIMARYTOPIC for the 1959 film are on the edge, so we should use editor opinions to make the decision. There seems to be no consensus on any better name for Room at the Top (TV film) so it is not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The 1959 film was mentioned to me in another discussion. I learned that disambiguating films of a similar name and precision could overcome criteria of primary topics of a similar name, especially when "(film)" is used for one of films of a similar name. That's what happened to Psycho (1960 film) and Independence Day (1996 film). Stats for the 1959 film are either very vague or dishonest, as readers might be looking for either the TV film, the dab page, or the novel. As for long-term significance, either longevity and impact of these topics equally weigh, or there is no long-term significance. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original proposal[edit]

Support since I do not think the term "Room at the Top" has a primary topic. Thus, it is appropriate to disambiguate Room at the Top as Room at the Top (1959 film) and to move Room at the Top (TV film) to Room at the Top (2012 film) to properly disambiguate by release year. Lastly, due to no primary topic at hand, it makes sense for Room at the Top (disambiguation) to be moved to Room at the Top. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on the traffic stats for this article and for the disambiguation page. Nothing vague or dishonest about how little-visited the disambiguation page is compared to the base name. The rules for selecting a qualifier for non-primary-topic films do not "overcome" the selection of primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dab page stats are low because of the AutoComplete system. That still makes the TV film stats stellar. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked the base name and the dab, and I looked at their 90-day numbers. Please start using 90-day numbers, not current month, and please include the numbers (not "vague", "dishonest", or "stellar"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convince why I should. I can say what I want to say about numbers. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And some of what you say is not useful or convincing, while some of what you could say would be more useful and convincing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to disambiguate a topic, it cannot be primary. There are no primary topics being dealt with here. We need to properly disambiguate the two secondary topics from each other per guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic is this film. We are dealing with a request to change from that primary topic to no primary topic. Your claim is begging the question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I got this confused with the discussion at A Room with a View. (You can check that out too here.) In any case, I am looking at sources for the novel and the 1959 film and do not think that either one claims long-term significance (a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criterion) over the other. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And so we should follow the usage (the other WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criterion). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem like the 1959 film exceeds the other topics combined by very much. For Room at the Top, 90-day page view count is 16,552. For Room at the Top (novel) the count is 4,984, and for Room at the Top (TV film) the count is 7,185. That is 16,552 vs. (4,984 + 7,185), which does not seem to meet the usage criteria: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Considering how all these topics are interrelated, I'm not finding the edging-out rationale very compelling. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to meet it. It is much more than any one of those, and more than the sum of those, which is the criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom ; at the very least the telefilm should receive a redirect. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal[edit]

Comment. I am not going to even factor the 2012 adaptation into this since it is too early to assess the primacy of something that only aired 6 months ago. This purely comes down to the 1959 film and the book. The traffic isn't immediately clear: the film received 30k hits in 2011 while the other two pages (disambig page, novel) received 16k hits, so it is conceivable that the traffic for the other articles encountered the film first. The film looks as though it is slightly more revered than the novel, but I'm not convinced it is significant enough to trump the book. I recommend the alternative moves:
- Room at the Top → Room at the Top (film)
- Room at the Top (disambiguation) → Room at the Top
- Room at the Top (TV film) → Room at the Top (TV serial) as per WP:TV-NAME.

Betty Logan (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Room at the Top (TV film) → Room at the Top (TV miniserial) (or "TV miniseries"). --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such term as a "miniserial": a "serial" is short by definition. "Miniseries" is an American term, "serial" British, and since this is BBC production the British terminology should be adopted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TV-NAME supports the current disambiguator of "TV film," but if reliable sources are more often referring it to as a serial, that might be ok. I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but two broadcasts seems much more like a two-part movie than a series. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 3 June 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.