Talk:Beyond Blue (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Why was this moved to be a dab page?

@Zxcvbnm: Hey! I'm unaware of any consensus about this article title becoming a dab page and there doesn't seem to be any discussion about such on any of the three pages? Beyond Blue, the massive Australian charity that is chaired by a former prime minister and is the official provider of wellbeing support during COVID (Coronavirus Beyond Blue Mental Wellbeing Support Service), is quite obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this namespace. The video game has only been around for two months, and the film, in my opinion, fails the notability guidelines for even having an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Blue (film)). ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}} on reply) 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have supported the dab move if a discussion had of been initiated, as per the points you raised ItsPugle. I vote for changing things back to the way they were. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Since there's been no reply for a few hours now, there was no discussion, and there's a majority !vote against it, I'm just going to revert the DAB-ing for now. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 03:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2021

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

---

• Beyond Blue (disambiguation) → Beyond Blue
• Beyond Blue → Beyond Blue (organisation)

– There is no primary topic by pageviews for the organization and video game, and importance is completely subjective otherwise (whether an organization is "massive" in one country does not mean it's relevant in another). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support the organisation has 969 views compared to 690[[1]] for the video game which probably doesn't satisfy much more than any other. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Weak support per below. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: You're only looking at the data from the last three weeks Crouch, Swale. Here's the data from when the article on the video game of the same name was created by Zxcvbnm [2]. An average of 1,275 monthly views for the organisation, compared to 813 for the game. Not a drastic difference, but it certainly widens the gap. More importantly, it needs to be pointed out that the organisation has been running for 21 years and does not appear to be in any form of decline. If you search the article's full available page views, you will see it spikes considerably higher from time to time (probably whenever the organisation gets media coverage, which will be ongoing). By comparison, as an active gamer and editor of video-game related articles on Wikipedia myself, I can assure you interest in this video game is only going to decrease over time. It might not have reached its peak in popularity quite yet, but there's little chance people will still be searching for it at the same level in a few years (statistically, interest will probably wane a lot sooner than that), and zero chance it will still get ongoing media coverage after 21 years. Games typically go through short-lived periods of popularity followed by a steady decline as newer and more advanced games become available. Interest in an organisation that has been running for decades is a lot more stable. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is "more stable" is an inherently flawed WP:CRYSTAL argument. For all we know, the organization could go under for one reason or another. I'm not saying it will, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and decisions should be informed by the present rather than the future. Either way, the pageviews are not drastically different enough to truly say one is primary. When I think "primary" I think 10 times the views or more. If the game only got 80 views I'd probably think differently._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. Sure, the organisation could fold tomorrow, but if you don't consider 21 years of being the primary mental health orgnisation for an entire country to be stable I shudder to think how high you've personally raised the bar for that term. Likewise, this little game could be nominated for a number of awards which would (temporarily) give it some more longevity, but considering its "mixed or average reviews", probability suggests this one is going to fade into the ether extremely quickly. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's a case of common sense and probability. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see any evidence or reasoning to suggest a change should be made. Just because Beyond Blue is an Australian charity doesn't make it less notable than a video game, and while I appreciate that the charity may not be particularly well known outside of Australia, every single news article that I could find from a search of "Beyond Blue" talks about the charity - including international news agencies.

If you want to look at the subjective importance of these different things, Beyond Blue (the charity) is chaired by a former Prime Minister, is the main non-governmental mental health service in Australia, and is extremely active in the region. The game on the other hand, has somewhat mediocre reviews, isn't amazingly popular, and the article itself actually needs a lot of work (its only sources are: a Twitter account, a seemingly automatically created page with no commentary, and two reviews from game websites).

If you want to look more statistically, the video game peaked at 8 users in the last 24 hours, and since October last year, hasn't had more than about 10 users a day. Compare that with Beyond Blue, which answered over a quarter million mental health calls last year, and has 1.3 million annual visits to its help forum. If you even want to look at Twitter, the game has about 2,700 followers vs 137,000 for the charity. And on Facebook, it's even more prominent: 1,000 for the game, 630,000 for the charity. Looking at the article page views, its also obvious there that the charity is consistently more notable than the game.

I appreciate your involvement in this 'debate' about disambig-ing this title, as well as your creation of the Beyond Blue (video game) article, but there simply isn't enough evidence or reasoning to break the status quo. I also wanted to say thank you for discussing a move this time :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, an inherently flawed WP:FAME argument that relies on popularity outside Wikipedia rather than interest on Wikipedia (which can have nothing to do with its actual popularity as a game). One is not clearly and evidently more likely for Wikipedia visitors to be searching for (though it might be for Facebook visitors)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:FAME has no relevance here. It highlights the fallacy of arguing to keep an article from deletion based solely on its fame, usually from one event, rather than its sources. Whereas there are overwhelming sources that verify the facts about this subject being a notable organisation for 21 years.

Did you even read the most relevant guideline for this debate? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly states "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." What part of that sentence isn't clear to you?

I'm posting this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games to try and get more opinions. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now It doesn't seem particularly plausible that the video game is going to attract a significant number of views over the long term whereas the organization seems to have some staying power. I suggest that we keep the current setup for now and revisit in 6-12 months. If the video game continues to have comparable views, then I would support this change. But for now, I think we should keep the status quo.DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

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.