Talk:Babyhood (Paul Reiser book)

Requested move 4 December 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Redirect can be retargeted at editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Babyhood → Babyhood (Paul Reiser book) – The common concept of Babyhood is Infancy, so this should be a redirect to Infant to match Infancy, the expcted topic of such an article title; and not this comedy book that is unreferenced with no mention of notability. -- 70.51.46.255 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Babyhood" is barely used at all compared to infant or infancy, as indicated here. It's not in the common parlance and is more of a neologism than anything._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:ASTONISH. @Zxcvbnm: that's because babyhood is a specific stage within infancy not an equivalent to all of infancy, see Developmental Psychology - Page 121 among "babyhood is" search results. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's more "book Babyhood" picks up as many mentions for Babyhood (Penelope Leach book) as for the Reiser book, and there are 72 article refs to babyhood meaning babyhood (infancy) in our article corpus. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, of course, infancy = babyhood. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Even if babyhood is far less common than infancy, the clear primary topic of babyhood is still the state of being a baby. bd2412 T 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Babyhood" is not that commonly used a term, and there's no other article currently on WP that needs to use that title. This article doesn't get all that many views (6 a day[1]), so it's clear most people searching for or linking to "Babyhood" probably want the book. For the few who don't, a hatnote is sufficient, and better than putting a required hatnote on Infant (which gets over 1500 views a day[2]) directing people to the Reiser book. Station1 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Station1, who hit the nail right on the head. Dohn joe (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hit the wrong nail on the head. See our Hurricane article per "Wikipedia has no hurricane article". Infant gets 1,522 views per day, more than 6 for this book (of whom 5 were looking for babyhood I guarantee it). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane averages 659 hits per day. 20% of all readers landing on tropical cyclone get there through the hurricane redirect[3], whereas only 0.5% of readers landing on babyhood went on to infant, that is if we assume every person landing on this article got here by mistake[4]. But we can't assume that, because Fatherhood (book), whose title is disambiguated, also gets about 6 views per day, about double what the fatherhood redirect gets[5]. So if Fatherhood (book) gets 6 readers a day, all of whom were looking for the book, I don't know how you can guarantee 5 of 6 landing here don't want this book, especially since "fatherhood" is a more common term than "babyhood". Station1 (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The book does not meet primary topic criteria. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 01:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Many people use the term babyhood but few of them know of the book according to a couple of quick Googles. Some of the oppose logic seems a bit bizarre, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.