Talk:Lisztomania (film)

Phoenix
The band Phoenix now how a song called Lisztomania. Can someone add it as a pop culture reference?

lalala add it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.118.118 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

or really, lisztomania should be a page about the word and 'lisztomania' and both the movie and the phoenix album are both references to it. and also list beatlemania as a pop culture reference to it. its about time, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.104.108 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Listmania on amazon is not a tounque in cheek reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.249.250 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The song does not refer to the film but Franz Liszt, i.e. the phenomenon (Lisztomania (phenomenon)). see the music video, the band visits the Franz Liszt Museum... (E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Page move
See dicussion at Talk:Franz Liszt and Talk:Lisztomania. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lisztomania

Lisztomania (movie) → — Lisztomania was the name for the article on the film since March 2006 and there are a large number of links to it, all of which intend to link to the film. See also: Talk:Franz Liszt & Talk:Lisztomania (condition). Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The film appears to be the primary meaning, any film by a director of the stature of Ken Russell is fairly notable. The condition is pretty obscure, of doubtful notability if Russell had not made a film based on it. PatGallacher (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Weak) Oppose. Because a notable film has been made about it, the phenomenon is the primary meaning. :-) (Also, it avoids the need to add awkward qualifiers like "(condition)" after the name.) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Added later) I support this move, too, but insist that Lisztomania (condition) be moved to something less absurd. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do, but I recommend to discuss possible names at Talk:Lisztomania (condition). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The dismabiguator was wrong; if one were needed, it should be "(film)" (Naming conventions (films)). The film existed under this article name since March 2006, the article on the condition was written a few days ago. All incoming links to the page Lisztomania are intended for the film, not for the condition (where they are pointed to now). Notwithstanding, this is the major reason to revert the page move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Shreevatsa's argument is invalid, there is nothing about this at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We have had some similar discussions before, where a film is based on a book, if the film is better known it is the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the fundamental question is whether the movie is better known than the condition or vice versa. I thought the condition was better known, but maybe I was mistaken. Remember (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does "primary topic" necessarily mean the more popular one? It seems to me we should also consider what leads to better titles. Can we please stop calling it a "condition" as if it's a medically diagnosed illness?! Even if it's not going to be at Lisztomania (I think it's sufficiently well known, at least through the film, to go by itself), almost anything else is better than "(condition)", including "(fad)", "(history)", "(phenomenon)", and dozens of alternatives. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Does "primary topic" necessarily mean the more popular one?" – That's what this discussion should determine. The only help from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is:
 * "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include:
 * Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
 * Wikipedia article traffic statistics
 * Google web, news, scholar, or book searches
 * I would add the articles' history to this list. In my opinion, they all point to Lisztomania as the correct title for the film.
 * As I wrote at Talk:Lisztomania (condition), I agree that "(condition)" is awkward; however, the place to discuss a different disambiguator is on that talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that the film is sufficiently well-known (and better known) to deserve just the title "Lisztomania", without disambiguator. My only issue is that I feel the other thing is good enough (though less known) to deserve the name too, and more importantly, it would lead to a better set of article names, overall. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Shreevatsa asks the question Does "primary topic" necessarily mean the more popular one?  The advice given at Disambiguation is Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).  In other words, basically yes.  If the overwhelming proportion of readers searching for Lisztomania are looking for the film, then the film is the primary topic.  This is a particularly well known film, and I don't think there is much doubt most people searching the term would be looking for the film.  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Lisztomania"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Lisztomania (phenomenon) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)