Talk:Niraparaadhi

Requested move 25 October 2022

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: Moved. Editors' finding that the 1984 film belongs at the base name was supported by primary topic evidence in the form of page views comparing this article and Nirdoshi. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Niraparaadhi (1984 film) → Niraparaadhi – The 1951 film does not have an article and redirects to Nirdoshi. We can hatnote that here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence of Primary Topic from Gbooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that the other film does not have an article isn't enough? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless evidence is provided that Niraparaadhi (1984 film) is primary over Nirdoshi, which is also listed on the dab page, and is also titled the same way.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not sure why we care if it's Primary over Nirdoshi, which is disambiguated by having a different article title. This is a a slam dunk WP:2DAB case where a hatnote will still get a searcher of Niraparaadhi (1951 film) where they want in a single click, but maintaining the dab page pushes searchers of Niraparaadhi (1984 film) into an extra click. -2pou (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Finally someone who speaks logically. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I do wonder why we don't go to the single 'a' form of the title, though. The poster of the 1984 film spells it out "Niraparadhi". I'm no expert, though; there may be a good reason. -2pou (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Because that's the DVD cover. Let whatever spelling come to be cos the English spelling does not appear onscreen, save for the censor certificate which is a revised one. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, this is not how it works. Just because the other page uses an alternative name does not mean it is not a contender for this title. See WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Unless actual evidence is supplied explaining why this film is considered primary over the other, this move cannot go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  It would seem the evidence has been provided, though I thought pageviews were pretty commonly accessed. I suppose I take this for granted... Adding to the below, you could even say it is primary over the alternate's naturally disambiguated title. Still support. -2pou (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per PRIMARYTOPIC. Page views for the two show the 1984 film is clearly more viewed here than the 1951 film under that title, and most Google results do not associate 1951 film with the word Niraparaadhi. Hatnote at Nirdoshi should suffice. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2022 (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.