Talk:The Equalizer
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Steel1943 in topic Requested move 11 July 2022
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Requested move 11 July 2022 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: pages moved as proposed as consensus for the proposal as stated seems to have consensus. There seemed to be some discussion about determining a primary topic for "The Equalizer" instead, but I do not see consensus for such a change at this time per the discussion, and I do not see such a proposal becoming any clearer in this discussion (especially considering the "The Equalizer → The Equalizer (1985 TV series)" move request was added after the discussion was initiated.) If there is believed to be a primary topic for this term, a new move request can be opened for such a request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
– Having created an article on the franchise, I believe this is the clear primary topic of the phrase, and should be moved over the disambiguation page, which primarily lists media within the franchise. The sole listing outside of the franchise is a journeyman wrestler who only used the name for part of his career. I would suggest that a multimedia franchise including multiple films and multiple multi-season TV series is the clear primary topic over the wrestler, who can be handled in a hatnote. BD2412 T 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Added move of assoc dab.Removed per below at 16:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- @Rotideypoc41352: I do not propose to move the disambiguation page, I propose to quash it. It is not needed at all, since there is only one meaning outside the franchise, and that can be handled with a hatnote. BD2412 T 16:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
<Weak> Oppose: Someone looking for "The Equalizer" is probably looking for the film, not the franchise. The fact that the film is conceptually part of this franchise does not make the franchise primary over that topic. Until I added it a few minutes ago, the franchise wasn't even among the topics listed on the dab page as a candidate for this phrase. The film article has been averaging more than 100,000 views per month over the last two years. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- The franchise article has just been made within the past few days. The 2014 film is merely a subtopic of the franchise; it can not be more notable than the franchise of which it is merely one part. Furthermore, the 2021 TV series gets nearly the same number of views of the 2014 film since the TV series was announced in December 2021. Note also that prior to that announcement, the original TV series had been at the title, "The Equalizer (TV series)", which still redirects to that TV series. With one minor exception, everything of note on the disambiguation page is covered in the franchise article; there is no need for separate disambiguation. BD2412 T 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. I believe a single film or television series can be more notable than a franchise that includes it (or equally notable). The film is a distinct topic, not a subtopic. Wikipedia is not structured hierarchically. The same goes for the two television series. Is there anything in Wikipedia policies and guidelines that says a franchise is considered automatically primary over everything within it? Most people are probably primarily looking for information about the film or the new television series, not the franchise. I suggest that after a few years go by without changing any of the current article titles, only then will we be able to see whether people are more interested in information about the franchise than any of the individual topics within it (and we should keep an eye out for WP:RECENTISM when making that determination when the time comes). — BarrelProof (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- While this is true, once a franchise has enough parts to it, the franchise as a whole becomes the leading topic. Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokémon, The Muppets, Angry Birds, Mission: Impossible, all franchises. If we were discussing here whether a particular installment is the primary topic, that would be a different matter. What we have here, though, is a disambiguation page. An unnecessary disambiguation page, because it is basically redundant to the franchise. BD2412 T 01:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose I see your point. In some sense, a franchise page can serve as a disambiguation page to guide readers to their actual topic(s) of interest among a set of articles that have a common theme. I have added "<Weak>" to my opposition above. (And for the record, in my opinion, Star Trek is primarily a 1966–1969 television series – not all those sequelae.) — BarrelProof (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Opposition struck per further explanation about 1985 TV series and comment by AjaxSmack below. — BarrelProof (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose I see your point. In some sense, a franchise page can serve as a disambiguation page to guide readers to their actual topic(s) of interest among a set of articles that have a common theme. I have added "<Weak>" to my opposition above. (And for the record, in my opinion, Star Trek is primarily a 1966–1969 television series – not all those sequelae.) — BarrelProof (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- While this is true, once a franchise has enough parts to it, the franchise as a whole becomes the leading topic. Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokémon, The Muppets, Angry Birds, Mission: Impossible, all franchises. If we were discussing here whether a particular installment is the primary topic, that would be a different matter. What we have here, though, is a disambiguation page. An unnecessary disambiguation page, because it is basically redundant to the franchise. BD2412 T 01:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. I believe a single film or television series can be more notable than a franchise that includes it (or equally notable). The film is a distinct topic, not a subtopic. Wikipedia is not structured hierarchically. The same goes for the two television series. Is there anything in Wikipedia policies and guidelines that says a franchise is considered automatically primary over everything within it? Most people are probably primarily looking for information about the film or the new television series, not the franchise. I suggest that after a few years go by without changing any of the current article titles, only then will we be able to see whether people are more interested in information about the franchise than any of the individual topics within it (and we should keep an eye out for WP:RECENTISM when making that determination when the time comes). — BarrelProof (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The franchise article has just been made within the past few days. The 2014 film is merely a subtopic of the franchise; it can not be more notable than the franchise of which it is merely one part. Furthermore, the 2021 TV series gets nearly the same number of views of the 2014 film since the TV series was announced in December 2021. Note also that prior to that announcement, the original TV series had been at the title, "The Equalizer (TV series)", which still redirects to that TV series. With one minor exception, everything of note on the disambiguation page is covered in the franchise article; there is no need for separate disambiguation. BD2412 T 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment.
Someone looking for "The Equalizer" is probably looking for the film, not the franchise.
Is the 1985 TV series not better-known? I think it depends on your age. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- The film article has been averaging about 100,000 pageviews per month. The 1985 TV series article has been getting about 10 pageviews per month. That's a ratio of 10,000:1, so I'm pretty comfortable with that statement. (Although at the time I wasn't aware of the WP:RECENT popularity of the newer TV series.) — BarrelProof (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: I just realized that the 1985 TV series was at this title until about three weeks ago, when it was moved—without discussion—by User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa. The undiscussed move should be speedily reverted as contravening the instructions of WP:RM. Prior to that move, the ~50,000 page views per month for the title, "The Equalizer" were going to the 1985 TV series. BD2412 T 17:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh! — BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted the undiscussed move, per a WP:RM/TR request. I've also updated the proposal to reflect what I think BD2412 is suggesting (moving the 1985 series to a disambiguated title and then moving the franchise to primary-topic status); feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh! — BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: I just realized that the 1985 TV series was at this title until about three weeks ago, when it was moved—without discussion—by User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa. The undiscussed move should be speedily reverted as contravening the instructions of WP:RM. Prior to that move, the ~50,000 page views per month for the title, "The Equalizer" were going to the 1985 TV series. BD2412 T 17:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The film article has been averaging about 100,000 pageviews per month. The 1985 TV series article has been getting about 10 pageviews per month. That's a ratio of 10,000:1, so I'm pretty comfortable with that statement. (Although at the time I wasn't aware of the WP:RECENT popularity of the newer TV series.) — BarrelProof (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. There is no primary topic, so the title should normally be a DAB page. But why have a boring old DAB page when you've got a CONCEPTDAB at The Equalizer (franchise). — AjaxSmack 03:40, 18 July 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.