Talk:Secrets (disambiguation)

Requested move

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 Secrets → Secrets (disambiguation) Consensus indicates support for the move but no action on a merger with the "Secret" disambiguation page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Secrets → Secrets (disambiguation) – The clear primary topic of "secrets" is the same as the clear primary topic of "secret", which is Secrecy. Move to redirect this title to Secrecy, and to maintain consistency with the existing Secret (disambiguation). I considered proposing to merge this page into Secret (disambiguation), but these are both long pages, so I demur on that for now. bd2412 T 13:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the nom notes, the Secrets dab page is a mile long. It is far likelier that a reader will be looking for one of those myriad articles when they type in "secrets" than they are looking for the Secrecy article. Dohn joe (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A mile long and an inch deep. There are a long list of trifles playing on the clear primary meaning of the term. bd2412 T 16:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support on condition that the disambiguation pages not being merged. Someone looking for one of many songs titled "Secrets" is almost certainly not looking for one called "Secret" or "Secrecy".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support page move per nom; Weak oppose disambiguation page merge due to the words being exclusively different with disambiguation lists of their own. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Came here to support, but Secrets (Toni Braxton album) was apparently one of the 25 top-selling albums of the 1990s (8x platinum in the US, etc.), and it had 10350 views in the last 90 days. That was about twice the number of the dab page at the base name (5150); Secrecy had 15150 total hits. I'd suggest putting Secrecy and the Braxton album up at the top of the dab page and leaving everything else alone. Dekimasuよ! 18:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Even so, Braxton is merely referencing the concept of secrecy when she names her album "Secrets"; page views aside, Secrecy is by far the most important historical meaning of the term Secrets. bd2412 T 19:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • But the most prominent historical meaning need not be the most important encyclopedic target for the search term, right? Otherwise we'd always privilege the oldest form with the base title; we wouldn't have a dab at Tablet or Madonna, for example. (I'm not sure she's really referencing the concept in any meaningful way; after all, she sold her "secrets" 15 million times.) Dekimasuよ! 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sets forth two criteria for determining a primary topic. The first is page views; and the second states: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Therefore, yes, the most prominent historical meaning should be the most important encyclopedic target for the search term. This prevents Wikipedia from becoming a mere repository for the promotion of pop culture. bd2412 T 14:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • But there is still the question of whether articles on basic nouns have greater notability and educational value; that's why some (not all, of course; I'm closing many as moves) of these nominations are running up against WP:DICDEF. I doubt that many people are thrilled with reaching an article on how "Squirrels bury nuts, hiding them, and they try to remember their locations later.... Humans attempt to consciously conceal aspects of themselves from others" as an explanation for Secrecy. Granted, the contents of the articles are not what is being discussed here. But the most prominent historical meaning of a word is not necessarily the most prominent historical meaning of an encyclopedic search term. I know we both know these things, though. Dekimasuよ! 16:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
          • There is no doubt that many of these articles need to be improved - in fact, it is because they are such important topics that they merit this attention. "Secrecy" is not a mere dicdef; it is a concept that has played a vital role in social, commercial, and political relations throughout human history. bd2412 T 16:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the nominator's latest comment above. I don't care how the disambiguation page is set up, but it sounds like separate ones makes sense. —innotata 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - ugh, 15 million sales is hard to overlook. No PT for this exact title. Red Slash 01:14, 7 November 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.