Talk:Good for Nothing
(Redirected from Talk:Good for Nothing (film))
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Tavix in topic Requested move 27 May 2016
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 27 May 2016
edit- 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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
– Not the primary topic. Schwede66 21:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - no reasoning given and the two films have even less notability. Unreal7 (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Accepting Unreal's words, "have even less notability" suggests that none of the three items have any "long-term significance" and at the point we measure insignificant subjects against primary topic we are making titling more important than (possible) content. Surely that's madness? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Richhoncho, I'd be more kind and call it an own goal. Schwede66 10:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support — page view statistics are a bit of a mess because the 2012 film was originally titled Good for Nothing (film) prior to the creation of the article about the 2014 film. Page view statistics prior to the move shows that the (2012) film had received far more page views than the song. SSTflyer 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. There are no primary topics here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the 2012 film can reasonably be considered the primary topic. SSTflyer 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The page view statistics show that no topic gets more than the other two combined.[1] As SSTflyer says, it's probably the case that the article currently titled Good for Nothing (2012 film) gets more views than the others combined and may be the primary topic; it will be worth checking back after this move to see how the view counts shake out.--Cúchullain t/c 14:16, 6 June 2016 (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.