Talk:Powder

Requested move 27 February 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. — usernamekiran (talk)  09:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

– Powder as a substance is almost certainly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Brandmeistertalk  20:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Powder (substance) → Powder
 * Powder → Powder (disambiguation)
 * Support, good catch. No such user (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Seems logical and clearly the primary topic. Shadow007 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. A clear WP:TOPIC. None of the other full title matches on the DAB page has significant importance. Narky Blert (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems obvious. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, yeah, seems obvious, but I decided to double-check. Surprise!  The film (I never heard of) demolishes the substance in page views, by a ratio of 6:1 to 10:1 on most days, sometimes 300:1, but always several times higher. No way is the substance the primary topic. --В²C ☎ 02:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Page views don't override good sense and long-term significance. This an apple vs Apple Inc. situation. Articles about basic, general knowledge must be given higher preference than commercial products of fleeting popularity, especially when, like in this case, the product's name is inspired directly from the basic word. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means certain general knowledge topics are expected to be primary. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The apple comparison is a good point. I guess I need to think about this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but there's no proposal to make Powder (film) the primary topic and I strongly doubt anyone could gain consensus to move that article. That being the case, it's better to have a significant minority get directly to the article about powder, with a hatnote to the film so those readers won't be any more inconvienced than they are already. Station1 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had every intention of coming here to support, because it seems very logical. But Born2cycle is better than I am, and actually looked into it. Our feelings about what just seems right cannot take precedence over the actual purpose of disambiguation, aiding the readers. It seems that, as it stands, the status quo should stay.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:ASTONISH principle is also in place to help our readers. If I go to powder I expect information about powder - not a film, not a list of other options. I know some people don't like these kinds of "fuzzy" criteria and would prefer to go solely by page views or google hits or whatever, because those are countable/tangible criteria. Page views are less and less relevant in the era of solid search engines. People will get to the similarly named topics wherever they are, but our duty to the reader is to put what makes the most sense at primary. -- Netoholic @ 08:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I expect information about [topic] - not a film, not a list of other options – that's quite sensible reasoning. I just wish it had been applied to the discussion at Talk:Tea Party, where there's a similar primary-topic debate going on. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I expect..." is never good reasoning, because our individual experiences and interests might not reflect the majority of readers. Objective data show that it's quite likely that a significant majority of WP users will not be astonished to find an article about the film at "Powder". Station1 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a faulty conclusion. You cannot say that page views reflect reader expectations. Do you really think that if you were to open up a paper encyclopedia to "powder", that a film topic would be there? Would you expect to open up "apple" and read about a software company?  Certainly not. And imagine instead that the reader is just learning English, do you really want them to land on a page about a film? General knowledge topic by there nature often do not get high page views simply because they are so well-known.  In fact, page views demonstrate that in the era of modern search engines, readers are directed appropriately using keywords and context, and so the name of the article really doesn't matter so much.  -- Netoholic @  01:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd be a little surprised to find any article titled "Powder" in a paper encyclopedia (I'll have to look next time I'm at the library), but yes, I'd be more surprised to find one about the film, since general knowledge paper encyclopedias rarely if ever have articles about individual films. We are WP:NOTPAPER, however, and have articles about even obscure films, so I would not be surprised to find it on WP. The software company is properly named Apple, Inc., so that makes that choice unnecessary. I do agree that article titles matter very little with regard to searching. On average, well over 95% of readers land on the article they want on the first try. Titles matter only for the small minority, but we might as well do the best we can for them. Station1 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER says there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover which is true, but not actually the point. There are a limited number of primary topics (one for any particular title). So in that respect, yes, we have to be selective like a paper encyclopedia does when it comes to deciding what to put at primary, and primary should be reserved for the most general knowledge topic among the eligible articles for that single title. -- Netoholic @ 02:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree except that I think that readers are best served by generally reserving primary for the topic that most readers want to read about. Station1 (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, if we built a tool which automatically moved pages to primary based on their 90-day page view statistics, you would approve of that? -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly not! I would miss these discussions far too much. Station1 (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If page views are your only criteria, then there isn't much of a discussion. Your answer seems conflicted. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I do not agree with B2C about the primary topic. Long-term significance overrides pageviews in determining primary topics.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I don't agree with giving a 20-year-old film precedence over the meaning the term has held for centuries. Lepricavark (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the term has many meanings, and disambiguation is best. This primarytopic grab is not a good direction. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.