Talk:It's Great to Be Alive
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anthony Appleyard in topic Move? II
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation) → It's Great to Be Alive
- It's Great to Be Alive → It's Great to Be Alive (film)
– Is there a reason that the film is the primary topic? If so, I would love to see it; otherwise, I can't think any reason that the film is primary. Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why the film should no longer be primary? (It's been at the base name since 2006.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have not been familiar with this movie at all, and I don't know who else is familiar with this movie. Are you or anyone else? --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anecdotal familiarity is not one of the primary topic criteria. You're proposing the current situation be changed, but only on the basis that you can't think of a reason why it's the current situation. We don't need a reason why the current situation exists; we need a reason why we should change to a new situation. Is there a reason why the film should no longer be primary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- album, film, and song. It's a Great Day to Be Alive. It's Good to Be Alive and its redirect. --George Ho (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Using a full month without a move request) (January), album = 240, film = 550, and song = 39. So again I ask, is there a reason why the film should no longer be primary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Google, Bing, some vintage ad. "It's Great to be Alive" can be a popular catch phrase, even if it is not notable enough to be added into the disambiguation page. For a second, I thought the title is too good for the 1933 film. Also, the film is just as popular as the album, even with less than 600 hits per month. If the move happens, then which would be more popular thereafter: the film or the album? --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How is the album just as popular as the film? You could say the album is "half as popular". But I have no crystal ball. What you might do is allow your newly created disambiguation page time to amass its own hit count, then see if more than half the readers going to the base name are having to go to the dab to find the article they sought -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about "It's Great to Be Young"? Before it became a dab page yesterday without discussion, it was an article about a 1956 film. Popularity there wasn't stellar, and neither was the album nor the 1946 film. Yesterday, the 1956 film made less hits than the dab page. --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- "It's Great to Be Young" is not "It's Great to Be Alive", so those stats don't help determine the primary topic (if any) here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about "It's Great to Be Young"? Before it became a dab page yesterday without discussion, it was an article about a 1956 film. Popularity there wasn't stellar, and neither was the album nor the 1946 film. Yesterday, the 1956 film made less hits than the dab page. --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- How is the album just as popular as the film? You could say the album is "half as popular". But I have no crystal ball. What you might do is allow your newly created disambiguation page time to amass its own hit count, then see if more than half the readers going to the base name are having to go to the dab to find the article they sought -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Google, Bing, some vintage ad. "It's Great to be Alive" can be a popular catch phrase, even if it is not notable enough to be added into the disambiguation page. For a second, I thought the title is too good for the 1933 film. Also, the film is just as popular as the album, even with less than 600 hits per month. If the move happens, then which would be more popular thereafter: the film or the album? --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Using a full month without a move request) (January), album = 240, film = 550, and song = 39. So again I ask, is there a reason why the film should no longer be primary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- album, film, and song. It's a Great Day to Be Alive. It's Good to Be Alive and its redirect. --George Ho (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anecdotal familiarity is not one of the primary topic criteria. You're proposing the current situation be changed, but only on the basis that you can't think of a reason why it's the current situation. We don't need a reason why the current situation exists; we need a reason why we should change to a new situation. Is there a reason why the film should no longer be primary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have not been familiar with this movie at all, and I don't know who else is familiar with this movie. Are you or anyone else? --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I just gave you a different title to compare. If that won't work, then here's my calculation of the average January day (rounded to nearest unit): film = 18 hits; album = 8 hits. Those numbers are too small to be primary. Average of last 87 days (excluding the Blackout days): album = 8; film = 15. Still too small... The search term is not that popular; would this support a move? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe that's a point of disagreement. In the guidelines, there's no size requirement, just much more than any other and more than all others combined (as in this case). -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does the guidelines say that there are no size requirements? It doesn't imply that the film is the primary topic. To imply, there are no minima and maxima requirements, yet it doesn't imply that either the film or the album is popular. Even the lack of requirements neither prevents supporting (or opposing, if possible) the move nor helps popularize the film nor decreases my points exactly (or yours, if you want to prove). If size doesn't matter to you, here's another point: what topic do you intend to first learn by using "it's great to be alive", the film or the album? --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do the guidelines give a size requirement? If not, there is no size requirement. Guidelines do not list (and do not have to list) everything that is not a part of the guideline. Yes, the criterion for "much more than any other and more than all others combined" is indicated by the stats you linked (decreasing your point exactly). Again, my anecdotal evidence is irrelevant -- we do not need to qualify every title with which any given editor or set of editors is unfamiliar. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Does the guidelines say that there are no size requirements? It doesn't imply that the film is the primary topic. To imply, there are no minima and maxima requirements, yet it doesn't imply that either the film or the album is popular. Even the lack of requirements neither prevents supporting (or opposing, if possible) the move nor helps popularize the film nor decreases my points exactly (or yours, if you want to prove). If size doesn't matter to you, here's another point: what topic do you intend to first learn by using "it's great to be alive", the film or the album? --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Consensus
edit- Support. If there is no reason for having the film as the primary topic, it should not be. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The current reason is that it is the primary topic. If there is no reason to shift it from that, it should not be. There is no special treatment given to displacing the primary topic such that it can be assumed unless contrary reason is given.-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anything in WP policy to justify what you've said there? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought inertia was a given. WP:RMCI agrees: "... like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens" (emphasis added). Is there anything to justify your claim (that unless someone can provide a reason for the current arrangement of any ambiguous title with a primary topic, the primary topic article should be moved to a qualified title)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's an entirely correct instruction on how to close when the arguments on both sides are fairly balanced. It doesn't amount to an argument in itself. There's no presumption what "It's Great to Be Alive" refers to, as a quick google will show you, so there's nothing to justify having a primary topic. They say it's great to be alive in Colma, too. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- And when no argument is given (as when this RM opened) both sides are balanced at 0. Current traffic stats justify having a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's an entirely correct instruction on how to close when the arguments on both sides are fairly balanced. It doesn't amount to an argument in itself. There's no presumption what "It's Great to Be Alive" refers to, as a quick google will show you, so there's nothing to justify having a primary topic. They say it's great to be alive in Colma, too. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I thought inertia was a given. WP:RMCI agrees: "... like any other discussion on Wikipedia: lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens" (emphasis added). Is there anything to justify your claim (that unless someone can provide a reason for the current arrangement of any ambiguous title with a primary topic, the primary topic article should be moved to a qualified title)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anything in WP policy to justify what you've said there? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The current reason is that it is the primary topic. If there is no reason to shift it from that, it should not be. There is no special treatment given to displacing the primary topic such that it can be assumed unless contrary reason is given.-- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The song is just a redirect, so it's between the film and the album. The album got 740 page views in the last 90 days, while the film got 1,354. Kauffner (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still, within 87 days, excluding ones without hits, the album has an average day of 8.5 hits, while the film has an average day of 15.6 hits. Both are too small to be primary per day. Hundreds of hits could make one topic a primary; 50 or more could make one topic a primary. How can 15/day make one topic a primary if 50 or 100 are not reached? --George Ho (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- To Kauffner: FWIW, being "just" a redirect does not take a topic out of the running for primary topic. To George Ho, as above, there is no "too small" for primary; it's relative "size" that is considered. 15/day can make one topic primary if it's much more than any other and more than all others combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, very well. The song redirect got 103 page views in the last 90 days. Redirects rarely get significant traffic, and this case what little traffic there was is an artifact of incorrect linking on the DAB, which I have now fixed. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's possibly an artifact of correct linking on the DAB, which I have restored. If the redirect is actually incorrect, it should be deleted, but while it exists, it should be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because a redirect exists we have to use it? That makes no sense at all. This type redirect on a DAB is not correct. See WP:PIPING. Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've always interpreted WP:REDIR that way, yes -- if we're going to link to an article, and there's a matching redirect, we use the redirect. If the redirect is wrong, we remove the redirect page. In this case, if the redirect is wrong, we'd delete the entry entirely, per MOS:DABMENTION. And that might be the way to go, after an RfD. But during the discussion another editor might engage in the RfD and "save" the case by adding the appropriate mention to the current target or even stubbing the song article out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- You might try reading the guideline instead of making stuff up. "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." So says WP:PIPING. I should add that just because a redirect happens to exist isn't one of the exceptions. The example in MOS:DABMENTION, the link you provided, is in exactly the format I put the entry in. Kauffner (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink." You might also try reading the guideline instead of making stuff up. Or at least try being civil. My earlier link was wrong, but WP:DABREDIR includes exceptions were the redirect matches the ambiguous title, neither of which is an exact fit for the situation here, but (as I stated, without making anything up), I've interpreted the guidelines to use matching redirects where there are matching redirects. Since It's Great to Be Alive (song) is obviously ambiguous with "It's Great to Be Alive", that's the sensible approach (so I disagree with your conclusion that it makes no sense at all). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you realize that anyone can create anything as a redirect anytime they feel like? Deleting them involves an elaborate procedure. By the above logic, we should link all examples of matching text to redirects. Go ahead. Pull my other leg. Kauffner (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do indeed realize that, but have no use for either of your legs. If an editor is being disruptive in creating redirects, there are also elaborate procedures for addressing that. But we assume good faith of the editors and hope that they will be bold in creating redirects where they see a need. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you realize that anyone can create anything as a redirect anytime they feel like? Deleting them involves an elaborate procedure. By the above logic, we should link all examples of matching text to redirects. Go ahead. Pull my other leg. Kauffner (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink." You might also try reading the guideline instead of making stuff up. Or at least try being civil. My earlier link was wrong, but WP:DABREDIR includes exceptions were the redirect matches the ambiguous title, neither of which is an exact fit for the situation here, but (as I stated, without making anything up), I've interpreted the guidelines to use matching redirects where there are matching redirects. Since It's Great to Be Alive (song) is obviously ambiguous with "It's Great to Be Alive", that's the sensible approach (so I disagree with your conclusion that it makes no sense at all). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- You might try reading the guideline instead of making stuff up. "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." So says WP:PIPING. I should add that just because a redirect happens to exist isn't one of the exceptions. The example in MOS:DABMENTION, the link you provided, is in exactly the format I put the entry in. Kauffner (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've always interpreted WP:REDIR that way, yes -- if we're going to link to an article, and there's a matching redirect, we use the redirect. If the redirect is wrong, we remove the redirect page. In this case, if the redirect is wrong, we'd delete the entry entirely, per MOS:DABMENTION. And that might be the way to go, after an RfD. But during the discussion another editor might engage in the RfD and "save" the case by adding the appropriate mention to the current target or even stubbing the song article out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because a redirect exists we have to use it? That makes no sense at all. This type redirect on a DAB is not correct. See WP:PIPING. Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's possibly an artifact of correct linking on the DAB, which I have restored. If the redirect is actually incorrect, it should be deleted, but while it exists, it should be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, very well. The song redirect got 103 page views in the last 90 days. Redirects rarely get significant traffic, and this case what little traffic there was is an artifact of incorrect linking on the DAB, which I have now fixed. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- To Kauffner: FWIW, being "just" a redirect does not take a topic out of the running for primary topic. To George Ho, as above, there is no "too small" for primary; it's relative "size" that is considered. 15/day can make one topic primary if it's much more than any other and more than all others combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still, within 87 days, excluding ones without hits, the album has an average day of 8.5 hits, while the film has an average day of 15.6 hits. Both are too small to be primary per day. Hundreds of hits could make one topic a primary; 50 or more could make one topic a primary. How can 15/day make one topic a primary if 50 or 100 are not reached? --George Ho (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- In this particular case the entry about the song should not appear on the dab page, whether as a redirect or otherwise, because there is no information whatsoever about the song at the target article. All the information about the song is on the dab page (that it exists and is by Johnny Mercer, both unsourced). The entry therefore forms a dead end for the searcher; it's misleading to suggest they will find more information by clicking on the link. If anyone ever adds info to the Johnnny Mercer article or creates a stub, the entry should be restored at that point. Station1 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Found the singer, Jo Stafford. --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- To Station1: which would also be a good reason to delete the redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. But I don't think removing an inappropriate redirect from a dab page is necessarily dependent on first deleting it. Station1 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- In theory, that dependency would help remove drama from the dab page. If articles exist, they get dabbed even if they are copyright violations, unreferenced, on non-notable subjects, or pure nonsense, until they are deleted. If redirects exist, they are (or should be) used on matching dab pages until they are deleted. I'd like to see dab page refrain from judgment on articles or redirects where separate judging procedures already exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm all for avoiding drama. But at least in uncontroversial cases and at least regarding redirects, I see no reason to suspend judgment on whether dab page entries serve readers. We wouldn't hesitate to remove an entry of an unlinked or redlinked phrase that also included a bluelink where there was no mention of the topic. Just because someone changes the phrase or redlink to a redirect, even in good faith, doesn't mean it serves the reader any better. It could even be viewed as a greater disservice in that the reader has no way of knowing there's no relevant article until after they click. It could make sense to also delete the redirect, but I see no reason to wait in most cases. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- OTOH, having the discussion first could often result in the un-disservicing of the redirect (if it was created in good faith). As in this case, George Ho found a better target for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm all for avoiding drama. But at least in uncontroversial cases and at least regarding redirects, I see no reason to suspend judgment on whether dab page entries serve readers. We wouldn't hesitate to remove an entry of an unlinked or redlinked phrase that also included a bluelink where there was no mention of the topic. Just because someone changes the phrase or redlink to a redirect, even in good faith, doesn't mean it serves the reader any better. It could even be viewed as a greater disservice in that the reader has no way of knowing there's no relevant article until after they click. It could make sense to also delete the redirect, but I see no reason to wait in most cases. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- In theory, that dependency would help remove drama from the dab page. If articles exist, they get dabbed even if they are copyright violations, unreferenced, on non-notable subjects, or pure nonsense, until they are deleted. If redirects exist, they are (or should be) used on matching dab pages until they are deleted. I'd like to see dab page refrain from judgment on articles or redirects where separate judging procedures already exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. But I don't think removing an inappropriate redirect from a dab page is necessarily dependent on first deleting it. Station1 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Move? II
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation) → It's Great to Be Alive
- It's Great to Be Alive → It's Great to Be Alive (film)
– At the previous discussion, I requested move for two pages because I don't think a film has reasons to be a primary topic. This time, I believe that either topic with the same name, "It's Great to Be Alive", is not a primary topic because chances of familiarity of the film is slim to none. Doug Fisher (politician) is not a popular topic as Doug Fisher (actor) ([1],[2]), so Doug Fisher was redirected to Douglas Fisher. Changing from David Isaacs ([3]) to David Isaacs (singer) ([4]) must have affected the popularity of the singer in Wikipedia and David Isaacs (writer) (even with little effect). If this move has full support from the whole consensus, then I swear that the film will be not popular as before the statistics for both the film and disambiguation will make more sense. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (Re-edited: --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC))
- Come on, the last move request is barely a month old. Oppose, and speedily. A bunch of unrelated traffic stats aside, I don't see anything above that has changed since last month. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's two months old. Even unrelated stats can show that (singer) is not as popular as (writer). Possibly, the (film) is not and will be not more popular as (album) and (song); in fact, the notability of this film is on the par with album or song. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wait... even if popular, Christopher Knight (actor) is not considered a primary topic per Talk:Christopher Knight (actor)#Requested move 2. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The last one was closed on March 3, so yes, it's barely a month old. I still see no reason given to move this topic based on popularity of topics under other titles. We're talking about topic usage, not disambiguating phrase usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now I added the motto for Colma, California. Regarding the usage of the film, Wikipedia's AutoComplete Search doesn't say whether the title itself, "It's Great to Be Alive", is the film, the tv series, the motto, or the book. What if it is not the film the researchers are seeking? --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The motto is not ambiguous with "It's Great to Be Alive". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists; there are cases where an ambiguous title can have a primary topic. In those cases, if a researcher lands on the primary topic but intends a different article, a hatnote on the primary topic will direct the researcher to the other topic(s) or to the appropriate disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now I have created Great to Be Alive as a redirect to the dab page. There will be updates on midnight (UTC)/5:00PM Pacific. Also, there is a song without the "It's". --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The motto is not ambiguous with "It's Great to Be Alive". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists; there are cases where an ambiguous title can have a primary topic. In those cases, if a researcher lands on the primary topic but intends a different article, a hatnote on the primary topic will direct the researcher to the other topic(s) or to the appropriate disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now I added the motto for Colma, California. Regarding the usage of the film, Wikipedia's AutoComplete Search doesn't say whether the title itself, "It's Great to Be Alive", is the film, the tv series, the motto, or the book. What if it is not the film the researchers are seeking? --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's two months old. Even unrelated stats can show that (singer) is not as popular as (writer). Possibly, the (film) is not and will be not more popular as (album) and (song); in fact, the notability of this film is on the par with album or song. --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Hoping against hope for a renaissance of good sense in titling choices of this sort. Have we lost sight of the real needs of real readers? Many editors have, including some admins who deal with RMs. Most regrettable. We should not be locked into a hermetically sealed culture of following ill-formed partisan rules for the sake of it. No one suffers when titles are informative and useful, like "It's Great to Be Alive (film)"; many are inconvenienced when they are not informative and useful, like "It's Great to Be Alive". Reality check, please. When genuine community consultation becomes possible again at WT:TITLE, this issue should get a thorough airing. Meanwhile, let's talk sense in RM discussions. NoeticaTea? 00:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hoping against hope for an end to the posturing rhetoric. You don't agree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:PRECISION, we get it. Along the way, "many editors" have lost sight of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Rather than sowing drama in your travels, I again ask you to seek new consensus at the guidelines and policies you disagree with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot see past the comfortable security of fixed rules (shaky and uncertain as they are, in this case). We get it. You don't like new ideas that tap into a deeper consensus, and actually serve the readers of this encyclopedia. We get it. Genuine, creative, discussion in the interests of readers unsettles you. We get it. You cannot meet sound evidence and well-articulated argument, so you label all that you see as mere rhetoric. We get that too. As an admin, you should have more sense. Unfortunately that is no guarantee – of anything much. I started no personal exchange here. You did. I will not continue it, beyond this post. Show some maturity. As I have asked you elsewhere, if you have an issue with my style and my level of expert evidence and analysis, take it to my talkpage. The certainties you adduce at RMs concerning precision and "primary topic" are little more than the product of an inner circle of enthusiasts. RMs are for real discussion, at the coal face. It's about practice, not empty theory – especially not sophomoric algorithms to solve complex problems in human communication. NoeticaTea? 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- As ever, anything you disagree with is dismissed with posturing rhetoric. Assume good faith, in me and in the editors whose consensus formed those guidelines and policies. You are not the prophet of the new Wikipedia testament, here to free us from the bondage of the old law. I do label all that claptrap as rhetoric, yes. Take your supposedly genuine, creative discussion to those rules and see if they represent a new consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, both of you, take this elsewhere, such as in WP:village pump (proposal) or WP:ANI. --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "while you can"? Other than that, yes, I agree that this is not the right place to change the guidelines or policies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I mean: do whatever you want to do, but not here if unrelated to this discussion. You opposed; Noetica supports. That's all you can say, unless you want to explain more about why you voted this or that way. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "while you can"? Other than that, yes, I agree that this is not the right place to change the guidelines or policies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, both of you, take this elsewhere, such as in WP:village pump (proposal) or WP:ANI. --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- As ever, anything you disagree with is dismissed with posturing rhetoric. Assume good faith, in me and in the editors whose consensus formed those guidelines and policies. You are not the prophet of the new Wikipedia testament, here to free us from the bondage of the old law. I do label all that claptrap as rhetoric, yes. Take your supposedly genuine, creative discussion to those rules and see if they represent a new consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot see past the comfortable security of fixed rules (shaky and uncertain as they are, in this case). We get it. You don't like new ideas that tap into a deeper consensus, and actually serve the readers of this encyclopedia. We get it. Genuine, creative, discussion in the interests of readers unsettles you. We get it. You cannot meet sound evidence and well-articulated argument, so you label all that you see as mere rhetoric. We get that too. As an admin, you should have more sense. Unfortunately that is no guarantee – of anything much. I started no personal exchange here. You did. I will not continue it, beyond this post. Show some maturity. As I have asked you elsewhere, if you have an issue with my style and my level of expert evidence and analysis, take it to my talkpage. The certainties you adduce at RMs concerning precision and "primary topic" are little more than the product of an inner circle of enthusiasts. RMs are for real discussion, at the coal face. It's about practice, not empty theory – especially not sophomoric algorithms to solve complex problems in human communication. NoeticaTea? 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hoping against hope for an end to the posturing rhetoric. You don't agree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:PRECISION, we get it. Along the way, "many editors" have lost sight of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Rather than sowing drama in your travels, I again ask you to seek new consensus at the guidelines and policies you disagree with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support – the over-use of primary claims for obscure topics does nobody any good. Use disambig pages for what they're good for. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- How obscure is too obscure for primary-topic-having? (Sorry, George Ho, this is also probably a question for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) The use (not over-use) of primary topics does good for the readers who are searching for the primary topic, few though they may be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The film doesn't do good to me. Sometimes, it is confused with "It's Good to Be Alive". It isn't similar to Never Been Kissed (the film) or Big Day (the common phrase with only one primary topic). I'm sure that it will be similar to "David Isaacs". --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Similarity to other titles isn't in question. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria include reader usage and long-term educational value. The reader usage seems apt here, and the traffic stats bear out the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- What if that guideline fails? If so, we might consider following an alternative, such as WP:CONSENSUS? If the guideline doesn't fail, then the film itself won't be the most valuable topic for education. There is no way that this film could be honored as well-remembered. Why is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC defined as absolute? How does this film fit the criteria of primary topic? Clearly, I assumed that "It's great to be alive" is a notable common expression, not the other way around or the film. No one here knows the film, and no one bothers to read or edit the film. Yes, it's a less searchable term, but so is "It's Great to Be Young". --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- If the guidelines fails (which is hasn't here) and if the encyclopedia would be improved by ignoring it (which it wouldn't here), then a consensus to ignore that guideline might be formed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- What if that guideline fails? If so, we might consider following an alternative, such as WP:CONSENSUS? If the guideline doesn't fail, then the film itself won't be the most valuable topic for education. There is no way that this film could be honored as well-remembered. Why is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC defined as absolute? How does this film fit the criteria of primary topic? Clearly, I assumed that "It's great to be alive" is a notable common expression, not the other way around or the film. No one here knows the film, and no one bothers to read or edit the film. Yes, it's a less searchable term, but so is "It's Great to Be Young". --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Similarity to other titles isn't in question. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria include reader usage and long-term educational value. The reader usage seems apt here, and the traffic stats bear out the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The film doesn't do good to me. Sometimes, it is confused with "It's Good to Be Alive". It isn't similar to Never Been Kissed (the film) or Big Day (the common phrase with only one primary topic). I'm sure that it will be similar to "David Isaacs". --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- How obscure is too obscure for primary-topic-having? (Sorry, George Ho, this is also probably a question for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) The use (not over-use) of primary topics does good for the readers who are searching for the primary topic, few though they may be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Firstly, it doesn't seem to me that there's a primary topic here by either criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Secondly, it seems to me far more helpful to readers to have the DAB at the undisambiguated name for this quite common phrase, rather than this obscure film. So if the guidelines do recommend the film, then it's the guidelines that need tweaking, and this RM is a good place to start. In any case they seem to need clarification at least. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Majority for move after 23 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.