This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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, as noted, if the correct arrangement changes in the future, the arrangement can be changed again then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: There is some logic and precedence (The Godfather, for example) for La La Land dropping its genus from its page title, to ensure it is not usurped from primary topic status, but it is noted that the saying "La La Land" existed as a slang descriptor for Hollywood well before the movie (not that this alone should be a reason not to support the page move, again noting the same applied to The Godfather) and that while La La Land has recent notoriety, it isn’t yet at the same level of iconic recognition as say The Godfather. There is some value in consistently including a genus descriptor in page titles for books, films, tv series to help locate the desired Wikipedia entry when searching, when there are multiple pages on a particular title, as people are used to this convention. This all said, these are merely thinking points, and no recommendation (either way) is made. Kangaresearch (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC) A comparative search of Google Trends, over the last three years, for The Godfather, The Usual Suspects, Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope and La La Land shows that while searches for La La Land are higher than for The Usual Suspects, they are less than for The Godfather, and dwarfed by searches for Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope.[1] Search trends for La La Land have been slowly declining, but not at great pace. Kangaresearch (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC) I agree that personal dislike or indifference for the film La La Land is not alone much of a reason, but I also note that if you search for 'La La Land Wikipedia' on Google the first result is for the La La Land (film) article, then the La La Land article[2] (and if you just search 'La La Land' then only La La Land (film) shows up[3])and while it appears second to La La Land on the Wikipedia search to La La Land the film is clearly identified as such, avoiding ambiguity. Kangaresearch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This move benefits no one, yet introduces an ambiguity that is unnecessary. There are many alternatives listed on the DAB, and this movie is named for the nickname for Los Angeles just the same as all the rest. This doesn't benefit readers, who almost unanimously arrive via external search engines (that don't care if we disambiguate pages). This doesn't benefit editors who in the future will have to monitor and clean-up bad links in Special:WhatLinksHere/La La Land which right now is kept very clean because we've kept entries disambiguated and bots alert to any mistaken links to primary. -- Netoholic@09:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Concur with Anthony Appleyard. The main problem, as the film itself highlights, is that people raised on a steady diet of pop, rock, hip-hop, R&B, and rap find jazz in comparison to be boring and old-fashioned. Damian Chazelle worked very hard on both La La Land and Whiplash to try to overcome that impression, but even after watching both films, which I enjoyed, I still think jazz is boring. It's been over three and a half years since this film came out and there hasn't been a significant upswing in the markets for jazz music or movies about jazz. Unless that changes, in 7 or 8 more years this film will be a dimly remembered relic of the mid-2010s; it will be seen as a sweet, well-intentioned and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to revive a dead horse. Then most people will go back to using the term "La La Land" under its traditional definitions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Over 90% of readers searching for "La La Land" are searching for the film[4] and the average is going up slightly compared to last year. Unsubstantiated speculation about the future and bias against films or pop culture should not overrule readers' clear desires. Station1 (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. I agree with Station1, and I disagree with the large assumptions and speculation made by Coolcaesar. It is not relevant whether or not you enjoy jazz or if you think this film successfully made jazz interesting to you. I hate this movie, but I recognize this is the primary topic due to page views. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
