Talk:Outro

Should this be a disambiguation page?

At the moment, this page has no content and merely points to three rather different topics. (The only thing they have in common is coming at the end of a media work.) For some reason it is structured an article and not a disambiguation page and I'm not sure why. I'm off to read the policy on disambiguation before I change anything, but I really don't see this page ever really becoming a full fledged article. Karatorian (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

An argument in favor of making this a disambiguation page is that the page that it claims to be the opposite of (intro) is one (AFAIKT). Karatorian (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion

See WT:Disambiguation#Outro for a related discussion about this page. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves – 29 September 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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The result of the move request was: request withdrawn. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• Outro → Outro (disambiguation)
• Outro (literary) → Outro

– In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the content at Outro (literary) may be considered the primary topic. The move from Outro to Outro (disambiguation) would be necessary to effect the associated page move. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom. This has been discussed here, and editors appear to feel that "Outro" should be the primary topic page's title, while the content of this page should be moved to the page (presently a redirect) that has "disambiguation" in parentheses. I agree that this would be an improvement. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Alternate I think that when the disambiguation page is moved, it should be replaced by a broad concept article. The literary, gaming, music, TV/movie concepts are broadly similar, being closing pieces at the end of a copmosition. Oppose moving the literary article. It is currently an unreferenced dicdef. A disambiguation page is a better choice than an unreferenced dicdef. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the articles seem to be notable enough to be the primary topic. Better to leave this as a disambiguation page. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per anon and Fortdj33. The proposed new primary topic is not notable enough over the other terms on the disambiguation page to be considered the primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - if anything searching "an outro" in Google Books suggests the musical outro, not the literary outro. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2014 (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.