Talk:Jaanwar

Is there a primary topic for the WP title "Jaanwar" ?
Our colleague Paglakahinka (talk) 22:08, said 4 May 2011 (UTC) at my talk page currently it shows that you had moved the page jaanwar 1999 as Jaanwar.
 * Request that Jaanwar (1983 film) be redirected as Jaanwar as its more popular than other two films with same name Jaanwar.

and i realized (just in time to avoid saving a version of this response there!) that the discussion belongs on this talk page (which perhaps will become the talk page of a sort-of-new Dab at Jaanwar). My prior observation (that the '99 one had to be at the primary-topic title) had no logic but the others' red-link statuses at that time, and now carries no weight per se. Nevertheless, i've reverted, for the interim, their move of Jaanwar to Jaanwar (1999 film), since (I've already made reference to the "Is there a primary topic?" section on the Dab'n guidelines page. I'd suggest anyone new to Dab'n matters read the next section on that page -- "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?" -- as well, and it's likely to be worth going back to the beginning of the page after doing so, and continuing until one has read sequentially all the way from there thru the section i named last.)  If we can conclude expeditiously that the '99 one is not only the most significant for our readers but the primary topic -- it would help to cite verifiable numbers in order to overcome the now relevant presumption that equal Dab'n is appropriate -- both the moves they contemplate should indeed be carried out (and i, or any admin, could do that). Otherwise, i recommend -- at the risk of being over-scrupulous, and even tho it'll need Disambig-CU -- that the deleted, "Create dis page"-summarized, revision of Jaanwar (as of 21 March 2008, at 09:12) by Shshshsh be revived by undeletion (immediately after again moving the '99 film's article to Jaanwar (1999 film)) to serve as the starting point of the newly needed Dab page. (If i'm not the one doing that, i recommend it be done by another admin for whom it would not be their first undeletion.) --Jerzy•t 09:27 & 09:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) what they assert -- Jaanwar (1983 film) is "more popular than [the] other two films with [the] same name" -- would, if true, not suffice to justify the 2nd move, as WP:Dab discusses (even tho it probably would rule out the current supposed primary topic).
 * 2) doing the first move, before we know whether to do the 2nd or have an equal-dabn, violated our guidelines that the unsuffixed title may not to be a Rdr to a Dab'n-suffixed form of itself, and
 * 3) the relatively harmless delay in correcting what has stood for all but 3 of the last 1000 days is IMO less disruptive than making a parlous guess about whether, in a few days, we'll have found reason to either overcome the strong presumption of no primary topic and thus of equal dab'n, or rather have good reason for converting from the contested primary topic to a probably durable equal dab'n.
 * The important update of the rationale for use of non-free image File:Jaanwar.jpg was neglected in the reverted move (and alleviated by the reversion), but will be called for again in the likely event of moving the '83 film's article. --Jerzy•t 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

instead of making things complicated just create a disambiguition page so that who oever wants to know can know about the deatoils of the film they are looking for. but jaanwar 1983 is more popular by name of jaanwar 1982..so jaanwar can first refer to jaanwar 1983 film...Paglakahinka (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As no one seems to be offering evidence of a primary topic, i'll replace the reiterated Rdr by a Dab page (equal Dab'n), reflecting lack of any primary.   My recollection is that an editor implicitly asserted in the article that the IMDb page refers to the same film, & i think you agree. In the absence of evidence such as i already called for, i'll create a Rdr (& lk to this section in my edit summary) but otherwise i'm not inclined to act on unsupported assertions. --Jerzy•t 22:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

as far as jaanwar is concerned, it can be observed that 1965 flick if spelled as Janwar and the other two are named as Jaanwar. so the best solution is creating dismabiguition page as it would allow viwers to see all the three films in same page and they can get to know about the film they are searching for. als o chronologically jaanwar 1982 comes first so jaanwar title should belong to the 1983 flick and jaanawr 1999 should be named as jaanwar 1999 film.Paglakahinka (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page would be best. None of these films is a remake of an original, and none have exceptional interest english-speaking readers, so I don't think any one can be considered "primary". / edg ☺ ☭ 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with edg re equal Dab'n applying. It is always the default, nothing exceptional is apparent here, and it is hard to imagine what special situation would justify chronological precedence. --Jerzy•t 19:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

No consensus to move and replace a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jaanwar (1999 film) → Jaanwar – Requested by Paglakahinka (talk) on 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC) at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. No rationale provided. Properly requested by Themeparkgc   Talk  09:45, 13 May 2011 (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.

Renaming this talk page
In well-intended moves, this talk page has been shuffled around a bit, and at least once improperly moved or left behind. It concerns the Dab page, not a single film, and i am reuniting it with the Dab page. --Jerzy•t 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Janwar Aur Insaan
Janwar Aur Insaan and the reference that supports it offer no reason to believe that users would reasonably seek it at Jaanwar, so the entry belongs in the "See also" section (if not removed) pending adequate reasons otherwise. --Jerzy•t 19:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)