Talk:Nagavalli (film)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nagavalli (film) → Nagavalli – ([ move])'''
 * The latter redirects to the former. No other article with a similar title. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While the film is the only article, the title is nonetheless an ambiguous term. Some discussion is warranted to determine if the film is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And therefore the current Nagavalli to Nagavalli (disambiguation) - - if the film is the dominant meaning. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Obviously the present title is more useful to readers, and the retention of this level of precision does no harm to anyone, anywhere, ever.
 * Note to User:Bkonrad ("older ≠ wiser"): if you must change a redirect into a DAB page in the course of a discussion, at least report that fact in the course of the discussion. If we can't communicate clearly among ourselves, why should we think we are experts in communication with the readers of Wikipedia?
 * N oetica Tea? 02:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF, and I suggest you examine the time stamps in the chain of events more closely before making accusations. The move was first proposed as a "technical request" at WP:RM. It likely would have gone through without any discussion. I examined the matter more closely and determined there was sufficient ambiguity to warrant a disambiguation page, which I created and then objected to the technical move request. This discussion was then initiated after that I had already made the disambiguation page. And FWIW, I don't consider myself an expert at anything. That you presume such a distinction for yourself says a lot. older ≠ wiser 03:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith, but obviously I cannot assume competence in communicating. Your edit at WP:RM was done without an edit summary; your edits at the present article (which I think would normally be just fine) should have been accompanied by edit summaries to make apparent the change from redirect to DAB page; and it would have been respectful to the proposer (and to all who come to look at this RM section) not to have it appear that he was talking nonsense, in the discussion as it is displayed here in this talkpage. Yes, I claim expertise in communication of that sort. If you cannot make that same claim, then watch and learn. Now let's just get on with it, please. N oetica Tea? 06:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose – In general, making a primary claim against an ambiguous term for a recent film is WP:RECENTISM. It serves readers better to let the title say "(film)".  And if for some reason a primarytopic claim is decided, then Nagavalli should be a redirect (like it was before), so the article title can still give a tiny clue to its contents.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * At present, I see no evidence that the film is the primary topic. However, if perchance it is determined to the primary topic, then the page should be moved and Nagavalli should not redirect to Nagavalli (film). older ≠ wiser 03:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Nagavalli is a not-uncommon surname, too. It's just not kind to our readers to make titles vague, just to save one short word from the title. Tony   (talk)  06:41, 15 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.