Talk:Three Girls

Requested move 20 June 2017

 * 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: No Consensus.Skew towards Oppose. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Three Girls (disambiguation) → Three Girls – Is there evidence the poem is the primary topic for "Three Girls"? When it's only averaging ~33/day, while the miniseries averages more than 2000/day. Timmyshin (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  09:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 33 hits a day for an 800 year old Latin poem seems pretty good to me! Srnec (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move. As of today, over the last 90 days, the poem has averaged 10 views per day, with a large spike around May 2017 because people were looking for the miniseries. The painting has averaged 21 views per day in the same period, and the miniseries 374, but consensus was that it was down to recentism and the miniseries is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see Talk:Three Girls (miniseries)). Therefore I would say the poem is not the primary, based on page views and also the fact the title translates as "The Three Girls", not "Three Girls". —  a nemone   p ro j ec t ors  09:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * De tribus puellis is "Of [the] three girls". Latin has no definite article, so there is never a "the" in Latin. Srnec (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was going by the article and just assumed it was a translation. But it still says "The Three Girls", not "Three Girls", so I still think The Three Girls should redirect there but Three Girls should be disambiguation. —  a nemone   p ro j ec t ors  10:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Latin poem is primary topic per long-term significance. Of course, a miniseries that's on the telly right now is going to get more page views, but that's exactly why we don't really factor page views in that much when considering primary topics. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another good (spectacular, even) example of the problem with page views. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2017 (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.

Requested move 7 January 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Three Girls (disambiguation) → Three Girls – The above RM missed an important point. De tribus puellis is rarely if ever referred to as "Three Girls", so that title shouldn't redirect there considering that it's so ambiguous. The poem is either referred to by its Latin name, or as "The Three Girls". The latter is usually just a gloss or translation of the Latin name. The Latin poem receives fewer page views than either of the other topics,|De_tribus_puellis|Three_Girls_(painting) and isn't so significant on its own - let alone under the name "Three Girls" - that it qualifies as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/ c 15:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with the nom's rationale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per detailed and well-reasoned nomination. No primary topic here.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support that the title here refers more to the other listed entries at Three Girls (disambiguation). No PTOPIC, interesting that the RM above was opposed. I suppose they were not focused on the title.  Lazz _R  00:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exactly (as one of the opposed above, and it would have been good to ping us both, but at this late date I don't think it helpful to ping the other). Previous nomination relied on page views. The excellent point about the the was not raised, and I missed it myself, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well argued. I would have closed this as move had I not been one of the opposed above. Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2019 (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.