Talk:List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered

Notability
Please read WP:LISTN before proposing or nominating this article for deletion. This list is notable in multiple reliable sources including HuffPost, Vulture.com, Mental Floss and Business Insider. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered, which seems to have the most support (see WP:NOGOODOPTIONS). There's consensus that the current title is problematic; if anyone can think of an even better title, feel free to start another RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

List of films Bill Murray was considered to appear in → ? – Ambiguous title. The intended meaning here was "films whose producers attempted to contact Bill Murray to cast him in a role, but he missed out on for one reason or another" — but as worded, the title could just as easily mean "films that Bill Murray has actually been credited with appearing in even if his appearance was questionable or dubious". So a clearer, more unambiguous name is needed. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sometimes when its hard to pin down the name for an article, it may indicate that the root problem is with the notability or the proper scope of the article. -- Netoholic @ 13:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This never happens, as the title does not define the scope. The scope is typically define in the lead's text. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, refer to WP:PRECISION. To a certain extent, the MOS:LEADSENTENCE can restate or elucidate the scope, but the title is the primary means of defining it. I don't see how my comment is wrong, especially in this case of this list which fails to follow several MOS:LEADSENTENCE and general MOS:LEDE guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * List of film roles missed out by Bill Murray, perhaps? I was kind of surprised that this is a notable topic, but there's ample coverage. Vulture has it at The Lost Roles of Bill Murray, which is rather elegant but a tad too informal. No such user (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * List of films for which Bill Murray was considered isn't the world's best title but meh Red   Slash  19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, title seems fine and descriptive per topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Title seems fine how? Down with blatant ambiguity, are ya? Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fine" covers it, the title reflects the page content. Although Red Slash's and Necrothesp's collab title may be ultra-fine (List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support move to something. I certainly read it as meaning something other than it actually did, so it's clearly ambiguous. List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered is, I think, the best. Still, I'm not sure this article even needs to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)