Talk:Forrest Gump (disambiguation)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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 debate was reversion of recent moves; the film article is moved back to Forrest Gump as the primary topic. Prolog (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Forrest Gump → Forrest Gump (disambiguation) — The novel is clearly unique original use, and all other uses are derivative works. Novel should be main article. Add hatnote    to final Forrest Gump. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  (T·C) " 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Forrest Gump (novel) → Forrest Gump
 * Forrest Gump (novel) → ]]
 * Comment. Are you trying to make the case that Forrest Gump (film) and Forrest Gump (character) are not the primary usage of the term? I would suspect that based on usage either of those two would have a better chance of being the primary usage.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose My view is the film is the clear topic lead but given the fact that there a number of very close options leaving Forrest Gump as a dab. page seems most appropriate . --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The movie was located at Forrest Gump until it was moved, without debate, to Forrest Gump (film). As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the film should be returned Forrest Gump and the dab. page remain at Forrest Gump (disambiguation).--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, I'm asserting that the novel is the inspiration for anything else (derivative works) listed on the dab page, as clearly stated on all pages involved. Therefore the novel should be the primary topic. Ref: WP:NC(F), the example regarding An American in Paris.  Dracula would be another related example. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support move of dab page, but the primary topic is the film, which was just moved from the primary title on 5 March (by another editor, not the proposer). Revert that undiscussed move. The film got over 1.3 million hits in 2009 (rank 2356 on WP), which is over 4 times that of the soundtrack (surprisingly 2nd) and almost 2.5 times that of all others combined. (Since its inception the dab page is getting more hits than the novel, character and soundtrack combined! - not good.) Station1 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After I wrote the above, the cut-and-paste move of the dab page was properly reverted so that it's now again at Forrest Gump (disambiguation) and Forrest Gump redirects to the film. So leave the dab page and put the film back at its original name. Station1 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment of WP precedence for my suggestion: Dracula is "an 1897 novel by Bram Stoker" (as reflected by the primary topic). Why?  He created the name himself (albeit a derivation of a foreign word).  Count Dracula is then explained to be "a fictional character, the antagonist of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel".  We could sufficiently prove that Dracula (1992 film) is the most popular iteration of the franchise, as the IMDB page has the most votes, and simply Googling "Dracula 1897" = 258,000 GHits, "Dracula 1992" = 1,190,000 GHits; "Dracula novel" = 1,760,000 GHits, "Dracula Oldman" = 6,450,000 GHits.  Due to it's relative newness and popularity at large, should the '92 film of same name now demote the "primary topic" of Dracula and relegate all of the rest of the subjects (including the novel) to a DAB simply because when people search "Dracula" they might theoretically be more likely looking for the 1992 film instead of the novel?  Well, read for yourself who created the name [ref # 1, 2].  In this case, it is clear that the novel is the inspiration and all other listed uses are derivative works, hence for encyclopedic purposes should be the primary topic. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and wow, what a bizarre coincidence. I hadn't noticed someone else had a similar idea to mine only three weeks ago, however to clarify, I believe that since the novel came "first", it should be the WP:PT, rather than a dab. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 23:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as nominated. I don't think the novel is the primary topic. That the film is a derivative work is not really relevant; it is still far more commonly associated with the title than the novel is. I have no opinion on whether to move the dab page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The film is quite clearly the primary topic. 185808 page views in January 2010 for the movie vs. 12763 for the book. older ≠ wiser 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Weird. We should move Dracula (1992 film) → Dracula, and Harry Potter (film series) → Harry Potter.  Can anyone refer me to WP policy that says I can't do that?  And what makes this topic different from those examples where the novel that originated all related derivative works is allowed to be the primary topic?  In other words, how are those two clear cases of the film being more popular than the novel *right now* special compared to Forrest Gump (film) → Forrest Gump as opposed to Forrest Gump (novel) → Forrest Gump?  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The facts do not back you up. 133604 page views for Dracula in January 2010 vs. 52709 for the 1992 film. Similarly, 476967 views for HP vs. 204903 for the film series. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and obviously your data accounts for click-throughs then also, correct? I fail to see that they do.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one making claims that they could be moved. It's up to you to do the analysis. As it stands, there is no basis for moving the articles you mentioned. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, derivative works. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  (T·C) " 02:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion about why they should be moved. But that is at best only one factor to consider when determining if there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You had a slightly different opinion last time something like this was discussed, and I'm trying to make a point here.
 * Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: which one should be the primary topic? 1, 2, or 3 ...the film, right?  = most hits.  Wait, what's the current PT?
 * Titanic: which one should be the primary topic? 1 or 2 ...the film again, right?  = most hits.  Wait, what's the current PT?
 * What determines when a derivative work overshadows it's predecessor, when it's clearly *not* hit counts? ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 03:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my opinion. Original use is a factor to consider. It is not the only factor or the deciding factor. There is no magic formula either for determining this either. It's a matter of discussion and consensus. older ≠ wiser 11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "magic formula" is the one proposed here, but you've already made your blanket opposing declaration of "me too" without any reasoning why, there OR here. Thanks.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have indeed already said that I don't think your proposed addition to the guideline is necessary. The guideline quite deliberately leaves a wide margin for discussion and consensus. Just as I do not support a mechanistic application of page views to determine primary topic, I similarly do not support a simplistic notion of original use as being a more important determining factor than other considerations. older ≠ wiser 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...except that's not how an encyclopedia works. In a book-indexed encyclopedia, issues like this list the first item first, followed chronologically by its derivative uses or works.  Understandably, Wikipedia is not paper, but it's still an encyclopedia.  I feel it's a disservice to an original artistic work with unique historic precedence to be replaced/overshadowed by a derivative solely because the alternate medium made it more accessible at large later in time.  As common practice dictates the contrary to what is being done in the case of this article, I've asserted a logical uniformity of this minority of articles falling under the specific criteria expressed here.  The addition would have been useful to avoid showing a systemically-biased favoritism in some cases like this one for a-derivative-as-pt over the more suitable unique-original-work-as-pt, regardless of "hit totals" as is being used for this topic instead.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * except that's not how an encyclopedia works. older ≠ wiser 11:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome... more snideness. There ya go, buddy!  I'm sure it's undeniable that Encyclopædia Britannica is largely representative of "how an encyclopedia works" (as in chronologically overall, regarding articles with identical names).  But hey, you'll be dowwwn for this move, right? ::: Goth subculture (45,106 hits) → Goth (9,895 hits), of which the two graphs look eerily similar.  I mean really, it's quite obvious what the black-dressing, pale-faced peeps are looking for, right?  It's pretty clear that more people are interested in "the scene" than "some people" who existed æons ago, with hits (35,734) to reflect their diminutive popularity. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant invective, but largely wasted effort. Do you have definitive references as to how Encyclpædia Britannica is organized or how it names topics? Or are your comments that based on your limited experience filtered by how you'd like things to be? As for Goth, I'm not sure what your point is. I've already said that page views are not definitive. In the case of Forrest Gump, it is my opinion that the movie has a decidedly more significant cultural impact than the book and should be the primary topic. I reject any attempt to reduce such a decision to a simple algorithm. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion. And I reject all of your opinions here and here as they were clearly also my wasted effort reading them and responding to them. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to editing in a wiki. Sometimes people agree with you and sometimes they don't. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. We still think each other is wrong though, ha.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The film is the primary topic by all existing criteria in the guidelines; that it doesn't comply with imaginary criteria, which one user is attempting to insert into the guidelines so it can be applied to an article about a band this user likes, is wholly irrelevant. Propaniac (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple convention requires an explanation for why such a thing happens a whopping majority of a time, but in the remote minority it's decided that "hit totals" be the fundamental criteria when in the case of derivation it by all means should still be precedence just as it is in the majority. There's no sane reason why a derivative work should overshadow its predecessor in an encyclopedia.  This is the exact reason why guidelines should be in place to reflect common practice / existing convention / or in your words "imaginary criteria" that reflects reality — so that someone like you can't come in arbitrarily and say that a secondary something that stole a unique name for itself, or a derivative work of an original unique creation (title-wise), should replace the originator by statistics alone, regardless of how slight the margin.  Not once have I said anything to the effect of "it should be first because it's better" or even hinting that "I want it first coz it's mah favrit"; you step too far in accusing me of fanboyism when my arguments are consistently logical insofar as explaining the need for useful, uniform and fair decision-making regarding obvious derivative works/names.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 05:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a sane reason. It's because most people searching for or linking to the phrase "Forrest Gump" expect to find an article about the movie and would be surprised to find something else. Many probably don't even know there is a novel (but will learn about that while reading this article, and then go on to the other if they want to). There are reasonable arguments against defining "primary" as "most-sought", but the current consensus is perfectly sane. Station1 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (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.