Talk:Goode Behavior

Requested move 20 March 2018

 * 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: no consensus for the new title at this time, and thus reverting to the stable title. Please note that this could have been done at the start of the process through WP:RMTR. Dekimasu よ! 05:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Goode Behavior (1996 TV series) → Goode Behavior – "Goode Behavior" is not ambiguous due to its unique spelling. No-one is likely to type "Goode Behavior" when looking for Good Behavior (2016 TV series), so it is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this spelling. -- wooden superman  09:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Have you considered that someone would mis-remember the name "Goode" as "Good"? The disambiguation is needed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the other way round. If they typed "Good Behavior" for this show, they wouldn't get here anyway, disambiguation or not, but there's no harm in a redirect from Good Behavior (1996 TV series) to account for this eventuality.  -- wooden  superman  09:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If the topics were in completely different subject areas, it'd be fine, but don't think that the small detail of a "e" is enough to separate it from another US TV series and also another US television series pilot - that's just a bit too narrow a distinction. We also have to keep in mind that "Goode Behavior" also has to be distinct from the disambiguation page at Good behaviour and the other topics listed there. -- Netoholic @ 10:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clearly enough to satisfy WP:SMALLDETAILS. Look at the other examples given with idiosyncratic spellings.  There is no way anyone typing "Goode Behavior" would be looking for anything other than this show, so why should they be redirected to a disambiguation page?  Let's not make it difficult for our readers.  -- wooden  superman  10:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those examples are fine when the topics are dissimilar airplane is a vehicle and Airplane! is a film. In this case, we have 2 (3 counting pilot) US TV series  separated by such a small detail, that it is worth it to be a bit more clear. -- Netoholic @  03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – If the move doesn't happen, I definitely think that Goode Behavior ought to point to the actual TV series article currently at Goode Behavior (1996 TV series), as the point that someone is going to accidentally type "goode behavior" when looking for generic "good behavior" rings true. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This would not make any sense. Doing this would acknowledge that the TV series is the subject the user wants, but would force them through a redirect for no apparent reason.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - how is removing the clarity beneficial to anyone? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The same way that American Idol not living at American Idol (2002 TV series) is beneficial. What is the benefit of keeping it at this needlessly long parenthetical name?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per the nomination, and I'm really wondering if the other respondents have not misread the proposal (genuinely no offense meant). To be clear, here are the results of various searches if this move was executed:
 * "Good Behavior" - a redirect to Good conduct time, an article about the penal term (not changed by move)
 * "Good Behaviour" - takes you to Good behaviour, a disambiguation page (not changed by move)
 * "Goode Behavior" - takes you to the article currently at Goode Behavior (1996 TV series)
 * "Goode Behavior (1996 TV series)" - a redirect to the above
 * Anyone searching on "Goode" is clearly looking for the TV series and arrives directly. Those searching just "Good" are entirely unaffected.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My issue is just the reverse. Users searching starting with "Goode" are unaffected whether this RM goes thru or not. It is people that don't recall the extra little "e" in the title which would have trouble finding this series. -- Netoholic @ 06:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's the opposite of what's true. Users who type "Goode" and either don't notice the suggestion for the 1996 title or continue to the full "Goode behavior" are currently taken to a disambiguation page. This move would have them going straight to the 1996 TV series article instead. And exactly as I said above, those who search on just "Good" (aka don't recall the extra little "e") are actually the ones who are unaffected. Their path to the TV series will have to go through the primary topic article and a disambiguation page (again, regardless of this move), but changing that would be a whole other discussion and not really relevant to this proposal.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the confusion. Goode Behavior should redirect to Goode Behavior (1996 TV series). -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you agree that Goode Behavior should redirect to Goode Behavior (1996 TV series), then you are acknowledging that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name, that there is no need for the redirect, the disambiguation is unnecessary and the article should be moved.  -- wooden  superman  09:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I agree with or acknowledge. I have no concerns when someone who know's the first word is "Goode" and types it directly. My concern is for someone who may vaguely recall the series name and types "Good Behavior" not remembering that extra "e" because its an uncommon spelling. It is that reader that benefits from the disambiguation (because they will see "1996 TV series" come up rather than either a disambig page or the 2016 TV series. -- Netoholic @ 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's all very well, but that isn't how we work. If we did work in that way, everything would have a disambiguator.  -- wooden  superman  15:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The good behaviour disambiguation page for this very set of topics is designed to aid people who might wrongly type or fail to type a single letter "u" when searching for some specfic topic, I don't see why its such an issue to also help people that wrongly leave off an "e" from a word which is almost never spelled with it. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRITERIA: "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."  Thus, we don't needlessly disambiguate.  -- wooden  superman  15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's do this. Per WP:CRITERIA, the undisambiguated title fails Recognizability because someone familiar with (but not an expert in) this show would be unlikely to recall the obscure spelling.  It fails Naturalness because they would be unlikely to look or search for the obscure spelling. Additional disambiguation is always more Precision. And adding the (year TV series) establishes Consistency because the other very similar US TV series uses the same. -- Netoholic @  15:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, you've completely missed the point on all of the naming criteria and made some wild assumptions about the habits of other readers. -- wooden  superman  15:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you two let a bit more time pass between these rapid fire responses? Heads will probably stay a little cooler if the conversation is allowed to sit a little while.

To the point, Netoholic, can you confirm that between your ideal solution and the proposed move the titles Goode Behavior and Goode Behavior (1996 TV series) are functionally equivalent in that typing either one will take the user to the TV series article without going through disambiguation, with the only difference being which of the two titles is a redirect to the other?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but the issue is NOT for the user that types "Goode", the disambiguation is to aid those that that "Good" (forgetting or not knowing about that unexpected extra letter). --Netoholic @ 05:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I get that. Just wanted to confirm I was reading correctly before moving on. So I'm guessing the unspoken concern then is that if this move takes place the title with '1996 TV series' will be removed at some point and a user who doesn't realize the 'e' should be there will no longer have that as a suggestion and end up going through disambiguation. Does that sound right? Because I can agree that that's a legitimate concern.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Will the redirect from not come up as a suggestion? What about the user who types the BrEng spelling of "behaviour".  What about the user who forgets that the film Airplane! has an exclamation mark (I note that "Airplane (film)" does come up in the search box), etc, etc?  In any case, if we apply this logic here, there are many other articles the argument can be applied to, and it quite simply isn't what we do.  We should go by current guidelines as this kind of change would need a community wide consensus.  This is why we have dab pages and redirects.  -- wooden  superman  09:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, to explain, go to the search bar and start typing "good behav" like user looking for this TV series would likely misspell it. With the disambiguation, you see it on the list (for me, 4th) along with (1996 TV series). When this page was undisambiguated, if you were lucky, "Goode Behavior" was on the list, but at the bottom wit hno indication that it was a TV series nor the year, and the 2016 series displayed as "Good Behavior (TV series)" - easily mistaken for this series. It was obscure, to say the least. I just don't think WP:SMALLDETAILS applies to easily misspelled words. That's why we often combine alternate spellings onto a single disambig page. -- Netoholic @  09:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SMALLDETAILS clearly applies here. The examples given are for much smaller variations than this example, and we shouldn't have to take into account someone typing the wrong word.  -- wooden  superman  09:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "we shouldn't have to take into account someone typing the wrong word" - By that logic, then we should split regional spellings, such as good behavior items from the good behaviour DAB page. Good Behaviour (Keane novel) can be moved to Good Behaviour also. -- Netoholic @  10:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm advocating the same approach with regard to regional variations of spelling here, but see Neighbours. -- wooden superman  10:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be fine with the 1996 TV series content living at either of the two "Goode" titles at this point, with the other being a redirect. If the proposed move takes place, we'd want to include some kind of message on the redirect page about why it shouldn't be deleted.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:SMALLDETAILS are enough to distinguish topics. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Again, I don't really understand the opposition. When I Goode Behavior, all the hits from several first pages refer to this sitcom, making it the primary topic of that spelling, and therefore it sufficiently distinguishes topics by WP:SMALLDETAILS. When I search for "Good Behavior", whatever I meant with it, I'm taken to the dab page as I should, where I can make my choice among similarly-named topics. No such user (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The "e" makes "Goode" distinctive from "good", doesn't it? If not, I'll say further. No other topics with exact similar name are deemed by reliable sources notable yet. Moreover, this was moved five days ago without discussion from its original long-standing title. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, if the discussion were to result in "no consensus", I predict the title would be reverted back to its original name w/o the disambiguaiton. Links were changed, yet I wonder whether they can be changed again. --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC); mostly struck, 07:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was discussed prior to the move, and the concern is that if the "u" in "Behaviour" is not distinctive from "Behavior", than the "e" in "Goode" is not distinctive either (and worse actually, because its a very unexpected spelling no matter what region you're in). - Netoholic @ 05:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Rescinding my vote, but I'm torn. I hate to admit that WP:AT and WP:NCTV are subjective, especially on this one. I prefer simply typing just "Goode Behavior", but I see your point on how precise the title should be. If a user were to search for the short-lived series by naturally typing just "Goode Behavior", the user would be forcibly redirected to the current title with extra disambiguation. Nonetheless, |Goode%20Behavior statistics say that "Goode Behavior" (w/o dabs) may have still attracted some users, but I can't tell whether the stats explain the full picture. Autocomplete search feature must have been used, which can explain how the numbers changed (or something). --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the "u" in "behaviour" is enough to satisfy WP:SMALLDETAILS. See Colors (film) vs Colours (film).  Or Off Centre vs Off Center  -- wooden  superman  11:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. If this should result in "no consensus" then article should be moved back to the original title (without disambiguation), as the article was moved from there without the proper consensus shortly before this RM.  -- wooden  superman  11:56, 23 March 2018 (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.