Talk:Rosalie (musical)

Requested move (January 2011)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Macr86 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Rosalie → Rosalie (musical) — To me, there is no primary page and the current page "Rosalie" does not seem to be a primary page. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Rosalie (disambiguation) → Rosalie

Move to "Rosalie (musical)" is consistent with other musicals. The bot has incorrectly listed the page move to "Rosalie (play)", but I had corrected it to "Rosalie (musical)", and the bot reverts corrections on the requested moves page listing. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The change to "musical" must be done within the movereq tag as well, in order for the bot to pick it up. Now done. Station1 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rosalie got 1500 pageviews last month, compared to about 1000 for all six other uses combined (I'm not counting Rosalie Hale because it's a redirect and couldn't be just "Rosalie" anyway.) The dab page got 300 hits, indicating no more than 20% of readers landing on Rosalie wanted something else. Station1 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• All searches for "Rosalie" go to this page, so which Rosalie are people looking for. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Based on the above statistics, I would say at the very least 60%, and probably more than 80% of searchers are looking for this musical. Station1 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is likely that the page hits are distorted by the current page organisation that favours "Rosalie". There are more than 6 other uses, although some of the meanings of Rosalie do not have there own page and are featured in other articles. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Recentism: The dab lists an historical item and place names. Please consider: "The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, ..." Snowman (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move?

I am concerned about Special:WhatLinksHere/Rosalie. The great weight of these links appear to be related to the musical. I think the move discussion was closed prematurely and I would like it re-opened. And certainly no-one should even think about moving Rosalie (disambiguation) → Rosalie until the vast majority of the incoming links have been fixed. Sorry, I accept I have been heavy handed. I did the move back before I saw the above discussion but having done it, I see no reason to revert it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the closing of the above discussion is premature. RHaworth, do you have any advice here? If Rosalie is moved to Rosalie (musical), then the disambig page should be moved to Rosalie. But I have no view on whether the first move should be done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Analyse Special:WhatLinksHere/Rosalie, Special:WhatLinksHere/Rosalie (film) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Rosalie(song). If one of the musical, film or song has significantly more incoming links then that has the right to the prime title Rosalie. Let us have some figures. The argument of being consistent with other musicals carries little weight with me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

When a page is moved it is normal for the person doing the move to fix the redirects. The administrator who closed the page presumably saw the good reasons for moving the page in the move discussion. I think that it is the links that should have been fixed rather than unilaterally overriding the move discussion. The current unlimited protection is over the top. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the links - some going to the film and some to the musical play. There are some left that I was not sure if it was about the film or the musical play. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The new page "Rosalie (film)" was made while the move discussion was in progress, so I think the best plan is to wait 2 or 3 weeks and then decide by consensus if there is a primary page at a formal page move discussion. Meanwhile, I do not see the need for the page to be protected. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that may influence what people do here. The above close was not made by an administartor or even an "experienced" editor (as is allowed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions). I have queried several of there closes and ask them to stop doing closes as they clearly don't understand how requested moves work (e.g. the above only seems to have been open a day) or how to determine consensus (e.g. there clearly wasn't one above). I'm not an admin either but come across this as I have been closing RMs as an "experienced" editor in an attempt to get rid of the backlog. Dpmuk (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Snowman that we should wait 2 or 3 weeks before any move is made. What need is there to unprotect the page until the expiry of that period? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the requirement to unprotect this page is in the guidelines. It is against the spirit of the wiki to protect pages unnecessarily, and so in this spirit and without any clear reasons for protection this page should be unprotected. If there is any persistent move vandalism following page unprotected, then the page can be protected. The current unlimited protection is over the top, and may actually enhance the disruption caused be the early closure of the above move discussion. Snowman (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a good point that you made about the person who closed this discussion is not an administrator, because I did not realise this at first. It seems to me that the early closure of the discussion has turned out to be quite disruptive. I do not see any message given to the editor at User talk:Macr86 about their closing of the above move discussion. May I suggest that you leave a polite message for this user explaining that you reversed his page move and so on. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It was Macr86 who drew my attention to this matter - see User talk:RHaworth#Deletion of Rosalie. I have no idea why - I have no recollection of interacting with Macr86 or with Rosalie before then. But since Macr86 had drawn my attention, I felt it reasonable to assume that they would be watching my actions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would address the topic of unnecessary page protection raised above. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To me User Macr86 seemed a bit confused about what the discussion was about. To me this makes it even less likely that there was any page move vandalism, and the current page protection even less justifiable. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I had almost forgotten that protects can be given an expiry time. Now fixed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would do that. My request was to remove page protection with immediate effect; nevertheless, page move protection now ending 30 January 2011 seems reasonable. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (February 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rosalie → Rosalie (musical) — The article "Rosalie (film)" was created while the previous move page discussion was taking place probably by coincidence. That was about two weeks ago and I expect the page views have settled down, and I have considered the page views over these last two weeks. The musical play does not seem be be enough views for that article to be the primary topic, so I suggest moving "Rosalie" to "Rosalie (musical)" and moving the disambiguation page to "Rosalie". Snowman (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rosalie (disambiguation) → Rosalie

Oppose: It appears from the "what links here" page for the article that nearly all the links are related to the musical. The musical appears to be the main topic, and the majority of people looking for the word Rosalie seem to be looking for the musical. Snowman, can you explain why you think this is not so? You say above that you disagree with this, but I don't understand why. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that above, Station1 wrote:

Oppose. Rosalie got 1500 pageviews last month, compared to about 1000 for all six other uses combined (I'm not counting Rosalie Hale because it's a redirect and couldn't be just "Rosalie" anyway.) The dab page got 300 hits, indicating no more than 20% of readers landing on Rosalie wanted something else. Station1 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Unsigned edit by Ssilvers (talk) at 21:56, 3 February 2011

There is absolutely no need for User Ssilvers to have transferred User Station1's vote from the January move discussion to this move discussion. Also, please note that the page views are now completely different following the creation of the page "Rosalie (film)" on 15 January 2011, so this earlier opinion is now out-of-date and irrelevant. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is only one vote above. It was contributed by User Ssilvers who also copied the text of User Station1's vote from the January move discussion including the wikilinks and User Station1's signature; see this edit in page history to confirm. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Incidentally, several weeks ago, where I was certain, I disambiguated the "What links here" wikilinks to the musical play, and I redirected the wikilinks that were not the the musical to appropriate pages elsewhere. Many wikilinks needed redirecting from the musical to the new page about the film. This makes the move from "Rosalie" to "Rosalie (musical)" much cleaner and easier and any remaining "What links here" wikilinks can easily be disambiguated or piped by using "[[Rosalie (musical)|Rosalie]]" after the page move. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to comment here. It is unfortunate that the previous discussion was cut short, and it is unfortunate that the article was split, but I'm not sure why that makes my opinion from a few weeks ago "irrelevant". Frankly, I don't have a very strong opinion about this proposal, because none are high-traffic articles, but I really don't see the benefit to be gained. Most people are apparently looking for the musical (stage or film version), so why make them first go to a dab page and then make them read two separate articles when they could land directly on one article and read everything there? I realize there are differences between the stage and film versions, but they are basically one topic and should be put back together as one article. Yes, a dab page would save a small number of readers one click, but at a cost of making a larger number read two articles instead of one - it just doesn't seem worthwhile to me. Station1 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support There is no clear primary topic for "Rosalie". Counting hits or pageviews, without any consideration to any other factors, is a poor guide to any decision. Using hits as our sole basis of decision making may appear on the surface to be objective but it abdicates our responsibility to be an encyclopedia and not a guide to popular culture. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Why do you say there is no clear primary topic? WP:NAME defines primary topic as the topic that "is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page..." So, if the musical is "being sought" by most readers, then it is the primary topic. So the statistics noted by Station1 seem persuasive to me that the musical is the primary topic. Can you show otherwise? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

From my comment above "Counting hits or pageviews, without any consideration to any other factors, is a poor guide to any decision". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, what other factors are there here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment some needs to fix the January RM, it's very screwed up. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• In effect the January move discussion was abandoned, because User:Macr86 (who has since been blocked indefinitely) closed it inappropriately early. Also, the page "Rosalie (film)" was created during the move discussion. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it would be extremely helpful if you logged in and signed your comments. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nominator: I do not see a primary page. The dab page has about a dozen alternative uses of "Rosalie". Disambiguations include several songs called "Rosalie", several place names, Rosalie (given name), a new page created on 15 January 2011—"Rosalie (film)", and several others. Over the last two weeks the page views for the musical have decreased following the creation of the "Rosalie (film)" article. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Instead of shouting in bold type over and over about how everything is different since the film article was created (BTW, *I* created the film article. LOL!) why don't you actually give some new statistics showing where the traffic is going, or some other rationale? Otherwise, you just keep saying the same thing, that you don't think this is the primary topic. Why do you think not - do you have any reason, or are you just guessing? If you can show me that it is not, I would gladly change my vote, but otherwise, it seems that you are simply speculating. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been aware all along that you created the article on the film, and I think that you and other editors have made a good job of it. The page view counts since you created that page are available for all to see. Are you implying that you have not seen the recent page view counts? Snowman (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. I have not seen them and would be happy to see an analysis of them laid out in an organized fashion as Station1 did above for December. I found persuasive his comparison of hits to this page as a percentage of hits to all the "Rosalie" articles, and compared with hits to the disambiguation page. Recall that for December, he found only 300 hits to he disambiguation page, compared to 1,500 hits to this page and 1,000 hits combined for the other Rosalie pages, indicating that of the 1500 visitors to this page, about 20% were looking for something else. What about January? It looks like Rosalie + Rosalie (musical) = 1,950. Rosalie (film) = 287. Rosalie (disambiguation) = 613. So, it still looks like by far the most popular article is the musicals article, with about 31% looking for something else. Therefore, I'd say, let's see what February brings, and see if the film article picks up steam, and whether visits to the disambiguation page increase or decrease. That would do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that quite a few people look at the pages during page move discussions, and so this discussion will disrupt the page views for February. Page views are not the bees knees, but this is how it goes approximately for about the last two weeks of January after the file page was made to the start of this page move discussion: Snowman (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Rosalie (film)" - about 10 views per day
• "Rosalie (song)" - about 5 to 10 views per day
• "Rosalie" - currently the musical - about 35 page views per day (about 22 per day not go on to dab, and 13 see dab)
• "Rosalie (disambiguation)" - about 13 page views per day
• "Rosalie (given name)" - about 5 views per day
• "Rosalie, Dominica" - about 5 views per day
• "Rosalie, Nebraska" - about 8 views per day
• "Paddington" - about 260 views per day (unknown how many are looking for the Rosalie district)
• "the other topics listed on dab" - I do not know how to find out how many people going on to these pages wanted to see Rosalie on that page. However, clearly this would account for a number of views. Snowman (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets assume that people arriving at the dab page arrive via the header on "Rosalie", then of the 35 page views per day on the musical, about 22 people arriving at that page wanted that page (or searched elsewhere) and 13 people moved onto the dab page. Snowman (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a primary topic? see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. Snowman (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this page a primary topic? Rosalie the musical (with about 22 search successes per day) is "not much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined" to be the subject of page searches, so it is not the primary topic here. Snowman (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You ignored Rosalie (musical), which must be added to the musical's numbers, as I just mentioned above. Why did you do that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained that part of my calculations as well. "Rosalie (musical)" is a redirect to "Rosalie" at the present time, so all the hits on the redirect go to "Rosalie". My assumption is that these will be added to the hits on "Rosalie" automatically, because the hits effective go on both pages. I am assuming that if the hits on "Rosalie (musical)" were added to the hits on "Rosalie" they would be counted twice. So applying this; there are about 10 hits per day on the redirect "Rosalie (musical)", which all go to the musical and are included in the 35 hits per day on the musical. Even if they these redirected hits were added to the hits to the musical, there still would not be enough hits on the musical for it to be a primary page. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that's not how the bot counts. Look at the url for each. Well, because you are trying to massage the numbers, I am sure that I will not change my mind until we have full February info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your response, since I have being doing my best to show you the page views and guidelines, and I have included both ways that the bot script may or may not count page views. I have not been deliberately massaging numbers. To me it seems fairly intuitive that a page with only 22 page views per day in its own right is not going to be a primary page over a dab page with about a dozen listings including some reasonably well viewed articles, and to me the page view numbers confirm this. Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions, and you are welcome to maintain your view against this page move. I see no reason why this move discussion should be extended beyond the normal seven days. I have nothing extra to add at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support There is no clear primaryusage topic for "Rosalie". The 1928 musical is too old, frankly, to be plausible as what an absolute majority of people would be looking for, when there are new uses of the term in modern songs. I don't recall ever hearing of the musical myself; i doubt that very many people know of it or would regard it as highly important. --doncram 02:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2024 in public domain

This work might already by public domain due to a lack of copyright notices that I can find, but it will definitively be public domain in America in 2024. Included are the songs. Here I am adding a link to sheet music cover for one such song, Oh Gee Oh Joy, which was copyrighted. Other things might be added later. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

On the left is Marilyn Miller who starred in the production in 1928. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)