Talk:Money Talks
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Requested move 12 July 2016[edit]
- 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: moved disambiguation to Money Talks and the film to Money Talks (1997 film). -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Money Talks (disambiguation) → Money talks – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. All of the uses listed are title case. There's little reason to place the disambiguation at the mixed case title. older ≠ wiser 10:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support the underlying proposal (no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) but agree with User:Bkonrad that the destination should be in title case (i.e. Money Talks). Move the current occupant to Money Talks (1997 film). — AjaxSmack 01:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support moving the dab to Money Talks; the film is not more significant than the other topics combined. bd2412 T 20:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment--the move as proposed is not about whether there is a primary topic for "Money Talks" -- notification should go on that page in case there are any interested watchers who might have an opinion about it. older ≠ wiser 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is implicit in the (poorly presented) nomination. There are two aspects to the move: the case change (which I disagree with) and removal of "(disambiguation)" from the title. If the former aspect is rejected, the latter (which I support) is predicated on the current occupant of that title, the 1997 film, not being the primary topic. The RM process is flexible enough to allow discussions to lead somewhere other than the original proposal. User:Bkonrad, what is your opinion of a move to Money Talks? — AjaxSmack 02:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Without some facts about page views or search results, I have no opinion. Gut feeling is it is probably right, but my gut is not a reliable source. My objection is that the new proposal will affect pages that have not been properly notified, and in this case there is a very long edit history from various editors. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pageview stats are of limited use since disambiguation traffic goes through the 1997 film page. (But note that Money Talks (TV series) and Moneytalks have about the same total hits as this page.) I put notices of this discussion at the 1997 film talkpage and WT:WikiProject Film. — AjaxSmack 01:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Without some facts about page views or search results, I have no opinion. Gut feeling is it is probably right, but my gut is not a reliable source. My objection is that the new proposal will affect pages that have not been properly notified, and in this case there is a very long edit history from various editors. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is implicit in the (poorly presented) nomination. There are two aspects to the move: the case change (which I disagree with) and removal of "(disambiguation)" from the title. If the former aspect is rejected, the latter (which I support) is predicated on the current occupant of that title, the 1997 film, not being the primary topic. The RM process is flexible enough to allow discussions to lead somewhere other than the original proposal. User:Bkonrad, what is your opinion of a move to Money Talks? — AjaxSmack 02:46, 14 July 2016 (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.