Talk:Sammohanam
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sonic678 in topic "Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
"Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 25 February 2021
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Nom supported by strong basis in policy (PRIMARYTOPIC per page views). Concerns about recentism and notability were adequately addressed. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Sammohanam (2018 film) → Sammohanam – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per pageviews. There's only one other topic, hence dab page is not needed. Ab207 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose WP:Recent see Sammohanam (1994 film) which is notable in books for awards. otherwise The Canon of the Saivagama and the Kubjika ...In the Vāmatantra list Vīņā is the seventh , Sammohanam may correspond to the fourth called Mohanam and Vīņāmaņi to the fourteenth called Cintāmanimahodayam ... does this need to be on the dab too? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- In ictu oculi, Notabilty of the 1994 film is orthogonal to this discussion. A quick google search shows that "Sammohanam" in all likelihood refers to the 2018 film. The other topic you referred has no encyclopedia article of its own (as of now), thus not a part of the dab page. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ab207 WP:DABMENTION In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- @In ictu oculi: But there should be an other article that mentions it. Isn't it? -- Ab207 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ab207 WP:DABMENTION In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. One always has to be careful of WP:RECENTISM, but the page view discrepancy of 400:1 in daily views is fairly conclusive in this case. — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: I have tried at length to see whether I could !vote either way to help here and currently can't. Sammohanam seems to mean enchantment and is a likely title for other works and concepts, and In ictu oculi suggests that there may be a notable concept by this name but is not specific enough for me to find it. Interested in other views, and worth relisting IMO. (Obviously) Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – per iio and recentism. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Only 2 articles, one of which gets hundreds of times the views of the other, equals a clear primary topic. Station1 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comment On RECENTISM: The page view discrepancy of 400:1 is unlikely to close anytime soon, even after 10 years. The usage of the term "Sammohanam" in reliable sources almost exclusively refers to the 2018 film, given that the 1994 film barely has any coverage. There are no other notable works that go by this name; Sammohanam redirecting to 1994 film is a testimony to that fact.
Both are film topics, hence neither has any more long-term significance than the other.-- Ab207 (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)- Both are film topics, hence neither has any more long-term significance than the other. A non sequitur if ever there was one. Some films have more significance than others. The 1994 film achieved some success with respect to awards, and this attests to its significance. It may or may not be the more significant, or they may be equally so but their both being films doesn't guarantee this. There are other logical flaws above but that's the ridiculous one. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Barring any exceptional ones, it generally is the case. Note that nowhere I argued that the 1994 film is not significant. But there is nothing particular about either of them to have "long-term significance." -- Ab207 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I nowhere said that you argued that the 1994 film is not significant. Just that what you did argue is patently invalid. And this is no better. Barring any exceptional ones, it generally is the case. Yes, and that says nothing, just as barring any exceptional ones, all Australians are geniuses. Did you mean to express the opinion that it generally is the case that if Both are film topics then it follows that neither has any more long-term significance than the other, without that redundant qualification Barring any exceptional ones? Evidence? I think we need some to back up such a sweeping claim. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I believe there's a miscommunication. Please allow me to rephrase. The 2018 film is primary with respect to usage: in page views and reliable sources. However, we lack adequate evidence to conclusively determine the long-term significance of any of the films. Ab207 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- And I believe that is a retraction. Your reasoning Both are film topics, hence neither has any more long-term significance than the other (my emphasis) was just plain wrong. You might also see User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. I cannot now !vote as I'm involved, but I thought your Additional comment needed a reply, and I still do. Andrewa (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that part was poorly presented. Thanks for correcting me. Striking it off. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- And I believe that is a retraction. Your reasoning Both are film topics, hence neither has any more long-term significance than the other (my emphasis) was just plain wrong. You might also see User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. I cannot now !vote as I'm involved, but I thought your Additional comment needed a reply, and I still do. Andrewa (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I believe there's a miscommunication. Please allow me to rephrase. The 2018 film is primary with respect to usage: in page views and reliable sources. However, we lack adequate evidence to conclusively determine the long-term significance of any of the films. Ab207 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I nowhere said that you argued that the 1994 film is not significant. Just that what you did argue is patently invalid. And this is no better. Barring any exceptional ones, it generally is the case. Yes, and that says nothing, just as barring any exceptional ones, all Australians are geniuses. Did you mean to express the opinion that it generally is the case that if Both are film topics then it follows that neither has any more long-term significance than the other, without that redundant qualification Barring any exceptional ones? Evidence? I think we need some to back up such a sweeping claim. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Barring any exceptional ones, it generally is the case. Note that nowhere I argued that the 1994 film is not significant. But there is nothing particular about either of them to have "long-term significance." -- Ab207 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Both are film topics, hence neither has any more long-term significance than the other. A non sequitur if ever there was one. Some films have more significance than others. The 1994 film achieved some success with respect to awards, and this attests to its significance. It may or may not be the more significant, or they may be equally so but their both being films doesn't guarantee this. There are other logical flaws above but that's the ridiculous one. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 11#Sammohanam ( 2018 telugu film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)