Talk:List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered

Notability

Please read WP:LISTN before proposing or nominating this article for deletion. This list is notable in multiple reliable sources including HuffPost, Vulture.com, Mental Floss and Business Insider. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 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 to List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered, which seems to have the most support (see WP:NOGOODOPTIONS). There's consensus that the current title is problematic; if anyone can think of an even better title, feel free to start another RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

---

List of films Bill Murray was considered to appear in → ? – Ambiguous title. The intended meaning here was "films whose producers attempted to contact Bill Murray to cast him in a role, but he missed out on for one reason or another" — but as worded, the title could just as easily mean "films that Bill Murray has actually been credited with appearing in even if his appearance was questionable or dubious". So a clearer, more unambiguous name is needed. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sometimes when its hard to pin down the name for an article, it may indicate that the root problem is with the notability or the proper scope of the article. -- Netoholic @ 13:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This never happens, as the title does not define the scope. The scope is typically define in the lead's text. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    • That's not correct, refer to WP:PRECISION. To a certain extent, the MOS:LEADSENTENCE can restate or elucidate the scope, but the title is the primary means of defining it. I don't see how my comment is wrong, especially in this case of this list which fails to follow several MOS:LEADSENTENCE and general MOS:LEDE guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• List of film roles missed out by Bill Murray, perhaps? I was kind of surprised that this is a notable topic, but there's ample coverage. Vulture has it at The Lost Roles of Bill Murray, which is rather elegant but a tad too informal. No such user (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• List of films for which Bill Murray was considered isn't the world's best title but meh Red Slash 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, title seems fine and descriptive per topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Title seems fine how? Down with blatant ambiguity, are ya? Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"Fine" covers it, the title reflects the page content. Although Red Slash's and Necrothesp's collab title may be ultra-fine (List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support move to something. I certainly read it as meaning something other than it actually did, so it's clearly ambiguous. List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered is, I think, the best. Still, I'm not sure this article even needs to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 31 August 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.