Talk:Little Monsters (1989 film)

Requested move 2 April 2015

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: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

---

• Little Monsters → Little Monsters (film)
• Little Monsters (disambiguation) → Little Monsters

– Doesn't look like a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to me. What do you think? --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. If we had to have a primary topic, it's the least obscure one, and probably by a fair amount, but we don't have to have a primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know - looks to me like this article gets a fair amount of traffic, and well more than the other articles combined (from March views):
  • Little Monsters: 3,823 views
  • Little Monsters (album): 192 views
  • Little Monsters (TV series): 366 views
  • Little Monsters (game show): 157 views

That's 84% of the traffic (not counting the 240 views for the dab page), and it seems a reasonably popular article - 45,000-50,000 views a year. We are not required to have a primarytopic of course, as stated above, but this seems like a good case for one. Otherwise, we'd be sending a large number of readers to the dab page when they could have gotten straight to the article they wanted. Dohn joe (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, no topic is an absolute majority in G books, and we don't follow page views as partly self fulfilling. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the overwhelming majority of page views this has is good enough to establish the primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 02:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Relisting comment I don't think there's a consensus to move, but this could do with a bit more input to try to settle it one way or the other.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support – there's no good reason to call this topic primary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Does anyone have an argument to move this besides In ictu oculi? I disagree with him, but at least he tried to make a point. (I don't think Google Books is case-sensitive, so his searches may not be valid.) Pageviews, which is one of our two major criteria, are heavily in favor of the current primary topic. Red Slash 20:44, 12 April 2015 (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.

Is the "revival screening" even notable enough to be presented in this article?

Users such as Properorange apparently have a thing for reinserting mention of a revival screening of a 35MM print of this film at the Mahoning Drive-In Theater in Lehighton, Pennsylvania that occurred on October 14, 2022. He has not provided a source for this except for the archived listing of its screening on its website...as an external link. The question is, does anything in that section fit WP:NOTABLE at all? Revival screenings of films happen all the time at various independent movie theaters around the world; they are not unique to the Mahoning Drive-In in any way nor are they usually given their own sections in Wikipedia articles. So is there a point in this article having a section devoted to a revival screening of Little Monsters? That Article Editing Guy (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I “have a thing” for this information because i worked on the film; and the programmers at Mahoning worked hard to find a 35mm print of the film. Took 2 years to track it down. Properorange (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Link to reliable sources then. That's the rule on Wikipedia. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this section until reliable sources can back up the claims. As it read it was promotional in nature. Ckoerner (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)