Talk:Thank You for Smoking

Requested move 7 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request as to the main request as the primary topic based on page views evidence. However, as to the second part, we do not need to make a dab page when there is a primary topic, and a hatnote will be placed instead. See WP:TWODABS. The opposition has been discounted as not relevant to application of the policy but rather a statement against the primary topic policy itself. That is a discussion, if at all, for Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation or another relevant forum.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

– Only two topics and the film is far more notable. It features far more information and actually has references: the book doesn't contain a single one. Unreal7 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank You for Smoking (film) → Thank You for Smoking
 * Thank You for Smoking → Thank You for Smoking (disambiguation)
 * Oppose let readers pick. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The readers already picked, and they picked the film. See |Thank_You_for_Smoking_(novel) this usage chart, which shows that the film gets about 91% of pageviews, compared to 9% for the novel. Straightforward WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Add a hatnote to point to the novel article, and we should be set. Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which means that the current set up when readers aren't forced to download an article they don't want and can see simple (film) (novel) is working. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, just quit IIO. Seriously. Your opposition reasons are beyond farcical now. Unreal7 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You could strike out "farcical" as well, there's no need for insults. I am entitle to think mobile phone readers should know which article they are downloading if I want to. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the fact thar over nine out of ten readers are lookjng for this particular article is telling.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.