Talk:Murder in Mississippi (film)

Requested move 30 June 2020

 * 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: Page not moved. There was not consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) --  Dane  talk  01:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Murder in Mississippi → Murder in Mississippi (film) – the primary topic for the title "Murder in Mississippi" is the crime of murder in the state of Mississippi. Per WP:Astonish, a reader searching for this title should be led to content about the plain English meaning of the phase, not to a film. We don't have a standalone article on the topic of "Murder in Mississippi", but we do have Crime in Mississippi, and this title should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Crime in Mississippi. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)} —Relisting. --  Dane  talk  18:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

But It clearly fails on ling-term significance: the issue of murder in Texas is several hundred years old, whereas the film is only 30 years old. And reliable sources pay much less attention to the film: JSTOR gives 60 hits for "Murder in Texas", but only 11 hit for "Murder in Texas" AND film.
 * How about we Disambiguate (create a disambiguation page) and let readers decide where they want to go? Thoughts on creating a dab page at the basename? When in doubt, it's often the safest bet. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Paintspot Infez is there any doubt here that the descriptive meaning is primary over the proper name? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that someone would be seeking the generic meaning here, note for example that Murder in England doesn't exist. While we maybe should have redirects for these terms I'm not sure that they're primary if something named as such is here. I agree with Paintspot, disambiguate.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see where the nom is coming from, but there is not currently any topic in Wikipedia on murder in Mississippi (or murder in most locales). Just because something sounds generic doesn't mean it's not the primary (or only) encyclopedic topic. That's the case here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. This article gets |Murder_in_Mississippi|Murder_in_Mississippi_(book)|Crime_in_Mississippi 18x the pageviews of the article about the book and 5x Crime in Mississippi, which is a broader topic anyway. Station1 (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply @Dohn joe & @Station1: the topic of "Murder in Mississippi" is covered in en.wp, in the article Crime in Mississippi. This was explained in the nomination, so there is no excuse for your assertion of a falsehood: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
 * The naming guideline is very clear about this: WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT:
 * -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Murder in the Rue Morgue could be called a subtopic of crime in France, but that redirect points to the book because it is the primary topic for that particular string. Just because there are a few words about murders in Mississippi in the crime in Mississippi stub doesn't necessarily mean the film isn't the primary topic for that string among articles on WP. Even if we ignore the different titles as a factor in determining whether a topic is primary, the film is still the clear primary topic, getting many multiples of the pageviews of Crime in Mississippi. Station1 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Station1:
 * Murder in the Rue Morgue refers to a fictional street. It is therefore not a sub-topic of the non-fictional subject of crime in France.
 * Counting pageviews is one way of measuring primary topic, and it is the use favoured by those who want to have plain English titles and dictionary terms hijacked by popular culture topics. This is a way of leveraging en.wp's systemic bias problem to enhance that systemic bias.
 * The fact that the article Crime in Texas is a stub is utterly irrelevant. The issue is the ambiguity and primacy of titles and topics, not the state of the articles.  (If we trimmed the article London back to a stub, it would still  be the primary topic).
 * -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. That's true. I probably should have used an example like Murder in Amsterdam or Murder in Amityville, but the analogy is the same.
 * 2. We should oppose bias against a topic just because a few editors subjectively consider the topic to be "pop culture". If a large majority of readers prefer to read about the film over actual crime in Mississippi, it is elitist for editors to stand in their way and force them to land first on what editors think they should want to read.
 * 3. I completely agree. - Station1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @Station1, please don't misrepresent me. I do not advocate a bias against pop culture.
 * I simply ask that topics be judged firstly on plain English meanings and long term significance. I object strongly to those who try to game the system by hijacking plain English titles through scams like systematically disregarding WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and there is nothing in the slightest elitist about asking that words retain their plain meaning, or asking that if readers want a film they append the word "film" to their search.
 * By your bizarre logic, if there was a blockbuster film called Texas which got more pageviews than the state, we'd move the state to "Texas (state)".
 * As to your analogy, it also fails for real street or town. Any "Murder in Foo Street" or "Murder in Foo Town" is unlikely to be a real-life topic simply because statistics aren't usually collated at such a fine level. But murder in Texas is a major topic, with plenty of scholarly writing and news report on the state's high level of murder. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Crouch, Swale and User:Dohn joe. —  AjaxSmack  02:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. We don't have "Murder in X" articles or redirects for most other locales, and they haven't been created in almost 20 years of Wikipedia, so it's not really plausible that readers are being inconvenienced by the current arrangements. Which is the ultimate purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - reader convenience. Whereas those seeking the film, which per above page views is considerably more than those seeking the Crime in Mississippi article, actually will be inconvenienced if the status quo is changed. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I have created Draft:Murder in Mississippi to cover the primary topic. BD2412  T 15:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which should probably be added to Crime in Mississippi given how stubby both articles are. —  AjaxSmack 01:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A hatnote is certainly useful, but this feels like a solution in search of a problem. We have a number of articles titled "Murder in [Location]," all of which are referring to books and movies. So the idea that the topic of primary interest to readers is the article that does not exist feels like a stretch.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting point about the page views of this title v the Crime in Mississippi title, presumably if we created an article on crime in the state of Mississippi then that might get some more views since its more likely Google would return it when someone searches for "Murder in Mississippi" but given that the topic is already covered in the Crime in Mississippi article if many more people were looking for that topic surely Google would send more readers to that article than this, again I'm not necessarily saying that this topic is primary but that does provide evidence against crime in general at least by PT#1.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, and I’ve read all of the above. The reason for the disagreement is that there are two different criteria to determine primary topic, and in many cases, like this one, they each indicate a different course to take to resolve a disambiguity. These inevitable conflicts which cannot be reasonably resolved objectively are why I opposed adding the long-term significance criterion to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But here we are. The reason I favor following the usage criteria in all cases is because it benefits the user. In this case most people searching with the term murder in Mississippi are looking for this article. So we take them to a totally different article because we consider it to be more important because it has greater “long-term significance”? Why? Who benefits from that? Doing so is elitist. It’s the epitome of elitism. They’re looking for information about this film, perhaps trying to remember the name of an actor in it. Based on relative page views, they are much less likely to be looking for information about crime in Mississippi. Sure, the few who are looking for information about Mississippi murders might be astonished to learn of a film with this name, but they’re a tiny minority in some fraction of the relatively few who end up at the crime article. Long-term significance is given sufficient consideration implicitly by the usage criteria anyway. That is, if a topic is truly significant, then that significance is reflected in the page views of the article. In this case the long-term significance of the literal crime topic is clearly relatively small compared to the significance of this article among those who should matter to us: our users. —В²C ☎ 06:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 July 2023

 * 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. (non-admin closure) &#123;&#123;replyto&#124;SilverLocust&#125;&#125; (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Murder in Mississippi → Murder in Mississippi (film) – Not clearly the primary topic over the painting, book, and Murder in Mississippi law * Pppery * it has begun... 22:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support even ignoring the generic meaning which doesn't have many views yet due to only being moved to mainspace yesterday. The painting has 1,698 views, the book has 71 views and the generic meaning has 28 (from only 1 day as opposed to 20) compared with only 1,209[|Murder_in_Mississippi_(painting)|Murder_in_Mississippi_(book)|Murder_in_Mississippi_law] for the film. By long-term significance the generic meaning is if anything primary and could potentially be primary by usage but we don't know yet.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Clear absence of a primary topic in light of the significance of actual murder in the state. BD2412  T 22:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. At the time of the previous RM, 3 years ago, the film was the overwhelming WP:primary topic. But as soon as that RM closed, Murder in Mississippi (painting) was created, and a |Murder_in_Mississippi_(book)|Crime_in_Mississippi|Murder_in_Mississippi_(painting) graph of pageviews since then shows that the painting has become the clear, if not overwhelming, primary topic. Station1 (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * support per nom—blindlynx 14:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and move Murder in Mississippi (painting) to primary per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC due to pageviews and long-term significance. Dohn joe (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should do that, long-term pageviews show 86,213 for the painting, 56,107 for the film, 6,206 for the book and 8,850 for the crime article. When you take into account the long-term significance of the new law article and the fact PT swaps can cause problems I don't see anywhere near a case for that. Let's just have a DAB at the base name at least for now.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Clear absence of a primary topic. And restore graphic to painting. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support . Not primary topic.  If anything, "Murder in Mississippi law" would be the closest to a primary topic in this case.  A disambiguation page should probably be created and redirect there.  Walrasiad (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support making the base name a disambiguation page, which includes the painting, film, law, and a link to, and other uses -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.