Talk:A Man About the House (disambiguation)

Requested move 10 February 2017

 * 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 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

– A Man About the House (film) is the only article with the exact title "A Man About the House". A hat note to Man About the House (film) and this disambiguation page would suffice, similar/reciprocal hatnotes could be included at Man About the House and Man About the House (film). Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A Man About the House → A Man About the House (disambiguation)
 * A Man About the House (film) → A Man About the House
 * Oppose - |Man_About_the_House|Man_About_the_House_(film)|A_Man_About_the_House_(film) see page views - 8 out of 463 daily views, too similar to better known articles. (film) isn't hurting anyone, just helping. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Only article on a subject of this title. Similarly named articles can be distinguished with hat notes and the dab page.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. With similar but non-identical titles, hatnotes are the less intrusive way to go. Someone wanting the other titles will get there as quickly through the hatnote as they would through a dab page. Station1 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D and a quintessential application of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Note to the closer: 's opposition opinion ("too similar to better known articles... '(film)' isn't hurting... just helping") is WP:JDLI because it is without basis in policy, guidelines or even conventions. WP:TOOSIMILAR, WP:ISNTHURTING and WP:JUSTHELPING are not even user essays, let alone guidelines or policies.  For very good reasons. --В²C ☎ 01:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle, you should perhaps declare that you have an edit history on those same policy pages on promoting small details. But be that as it may, this is a discussion, and I stand by opinion that moving the dab page out simply because of the "A", and moving in an article which only gets 8 views a day is not of great benefit. The argument that "this is the only article with the exact title" could be applied to move 1,000s of minor interest rarely visited articles over dab pages, and in each case makes what the article is less recognisable in the search box. Otherwise why even have discussion? As for quoting shortcuts WP:CRITERIA would be the one here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Again, "is not of great benefit" is not a reason based in policy, guidelines or convention.  in other words, it's irrelevant.  I don't understand why you keep giving that as a reason.  And linking to the WP:CRITERIA redirect without specifying how you believe that criteria applies is also not useful. --В²C ☎ 19:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support per this RfC; There are no other articles titled "A Man About the House". P p p er y 22:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In ictu oculi. The film is not an acclaimed classic and highlighting it as primary topic by default (of being the only one of the seven dab page entries to have an article) is not a sufficient justification for appending the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" to the dab page's main header, especially when the two additional titles, Man About the House and Man About the House (film) are taken into consideration. The argument may extend to supporting a move of Man About the House to Man About the House (TV series) if such a move were to be proposed. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Hatnotes should be sufficient. Also, per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:SMALLDETAILS, the "A" should differentiate the television series and the other film based on the TV show. BTW, maybe we can add a year for that film after this RM. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2017 (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.