Talk:All That Jazz (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

no mention[edit]

i may not have the senquence down, but this was an enjoyable broadway production of the same name as the film and whether it was before the film or after i dont know but was on broadway in the same time frame and you don't mention any of that i saw it twice on broadway with outstanding choreography and dancers as you expected of Fosse

/s willy sr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.233.217 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a Broadway production called All That Jazz. See ibdb.com for confirmation. Fosse's show Chicago, however, includes a popular number called "All That Jazz." Is that what you're referring to?PacificBoy 22:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Pacificboy is right,you are mixing up Chicago and All That Jazz.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move? (1)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. WP:NOTVOTE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per the details provided by Kauffner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– This film is the popular topic with 300 views per day. If this film meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines, then the guidelines must have failed to accomodate readers, as "All That Jazz" is ambiguous and more likely associated with All That Jazz (song), a song from Chicago (musical). If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not failing to accomodate readers, then this film fails to be primary, even if popular, as Google results do not have many a page about the film, especially if personal bias is eliminated. George Ho (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support no clear primary topic, the song and film are both popular. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The movie got 32,000 page views in the last 90 days, the song got 5,200, and the DAB got 1,300. It is true that the song is far more notable than these numbers suggest. But perhaps there is not the same impulse to read more about a song as there is with a film. This RM wouldn't affect fans of the song anyway. A hat note has been added to the film article, so the song is one click away in either setup. The issue here is whether the film or the DAB should be primary. What is the benefit of sending more people to the DAB, when this page is not the topic anyone is seeking? Kauffner (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, please explain your grounds for assuming, as you seem to, that all or even most views of the article All That Jazz were by satisfied readers – readers, I mean, who were looking for an article on the film? We cannot tell how many came from a Google search, for example, and gave up on Wikipedia and clicked instead on one the other hits, further down on the results page of their Google search. NoeticaTea? 00:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title is less common and less recognizable, so I expect this move to lead to a drop in readership for the film article on the order of 5 to 10 percent. I don't see any reason why it would effect the song article. That title will remain where it is. I guess we will see who is right if and when the page moves. Kauffner (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As it stands, an annoying and ruthlessly bare title that will mislead very many readers. With the entirely harmless precision that "film" provides, an inconvenience to no one and a genuine help to a great number of Wikipedia's worldwide readers. Why labour to find a "primary topic", when the cost is so high and the returns obviously minuscule? NoeticaTea? 00:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially considering that the film has as its topic the composition of the song. Powers T 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (2)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. The discussion below indicates quite clearly that there is no primary topic here. The film and the song, in particular, are both very well-known and roughly equally likely to be sought by readers going to or linking to an article entitled "All That Jazz". While I see the statistics presented by some of the opposers, I don't think they are especially significant in light of the fact that the film article was in the prime location. They're not enough, in my opinion, to overturn the prevailing position that All That Jazz should be a disambiguation page. -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC) All That Jazz → All That Jazz (film) –[reply]

From User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Talk:All That Jazz#Move?

* JHunterJ has closed it based on opposer's rationale and other considerations, such as "argument merits over numbers" and "guidelines of primacy". However, supporters have questioned the film's qualifications as "primary topic", and I'm questioning the closure. Also, JHunterJ has opposed some of my proposals, such as "It's Great to Be Alive" and "Firestarter", by using numbers and guidelines. Is this the right decision? --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Opposer provided an applicable guideline and showed the how the criteria for the guideline were meat. Supporters did not provide any supporting guidelines or show how the criteria for the applicable guideline were met. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • And there is also acceptable guideline for the plain name All That Jazz to be the disambig page. Names of countless articles about films have " (film)" at the end. This film has been around for 33 years, and in all time I had never heard of it until I read about it here: from the article it seems like an ordinary routine fiction film, not an enduring classic like Star Wars. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    That's the guidelines for the name of a disambiguation page if there's no primary topic. The guidelines for determining primary topic are readership usage and/or long-term significance. Since none of the topics appear to have the long term significance of "Star Wars", that criteria isn't used. Readership usage then indicates that the readership is being best served by the current arrangement, of the film at the primary topic and the others reachable either through the hatnote on the primary topic (the song) or through the dab page (the others). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is more discussion needed, can you or George Ho start a new section at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the RM[edit]

And see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Two queried move discussion closures.
  • Support — Regardless of popularity within statistics, if we could use the criteria from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, after all, the guideline says: "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic". In other words, there's no actual definition of the "primary topic". Readership usage and long-term significance are ususally used as common criterion, but they are not absolute and precise. In fact, here are my criterions based on my sense of judgements: familiarity, quality of the topic, impact in and out of the article, and interests on the topic
    • Familiarity: I often interpretted "All That Jazz" as the title of the song, Chicago, or a catch phrase, not the film. In fact, I haven't watched the film yet. Who else remembers the film?
    • Quality of the topic: Reviews favored the film, but Anthony called it ordinary. I haven't see the movie, but I recently read the plot and found it similar to the 8 1/2 (film), as what the article says (in an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV tone). Also, the song from Chicago is catchy and refreshing.
    • impact in and out of the article: It's not like Star Wars. In fact, reviews raved "All That Jazz" for musical numbers and titillations, but that's all there is, even when it was registered as "historically, culturally, or aesthetically significant". However, the song from Chicago made such impact to be familiar... and catchy... and a sing-along, yet the article All That Jazz (song) is very... desirable, unless anyone wants to redirect it to Chicago (musical).
    • interests on the topic: Am I interested on either the song or film? Actually, I have no interests to improve either articles. However, I may pick the song over the film because... it is popular and well-known, but that doesn't imply that either of them are or are not primary topics. However, this criteria is based on interests of people.
  • Readership and long-term significance are not the only criteria as precise. In fact, there are other considerations. As for "long-term significance", neither the song nor the film surpass each other. "Readership usage" is too vague and doesn't implicate primacy to me. --George Ho (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If an article gets more than half the relevant traffic, as is the case here, it is primary "with respect to usage," and we don't have to look any further. The "long-term significance" standard was added to make it easier to designate an educational topic as primary, not as an additional hoop. The idea that the song is shortchanged by the current setup is a misunderstanding. It would have remained at the current title if the RM had been approved. From the point of view of someone at the base lemma, the song article is one click away in either setup. Kauffner (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is using "long-term significance" as an example, as I'm reading along. As says:

In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic.

In other words, neither usage nor long-term criterion is absolute, even when useful in many cases. There are cases like there, successful or not. Sometimes, we don't have to follow those criteria; sometimes, we do. If film meets both criteria, are they stronger criteria than other unmentioned criteria? --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic guidelines are designed to resolve conflicts between those who want one thing as primary topic, and those who want something else. This logic would add a disambiguator to any ambiguous term. It's an anti-primary topic viewpoint. Kauffner (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... maybe after many of my proposals are over, we can settle this guideline in WP:Village pump (policy), as this request is about primacy of the song and its title without disambiguities involved. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No compelling reason has been given for omitting obviously useful precision. It's that simple. Help the readers, where the cost of doing so is negligible. NoeticaTea? 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as before. The disparity in viewership numbers might be explained by this article's occupation of the base name; coupled with the other factors mentioned in the previous discussion, it's best to err on the side of disambiguating here. Powers T 20:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    32,000 to 5,200 to 1,300 cannot be explained by this article's occupation of the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As said earlier, there is no implication that statistics prove anything other than popularity. There is no implication that popularity is the reason to make this topic primary. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "usage", not "popularity". Yes, that's a criterion for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I am re-reading it all along, "usage" and "long-term significance" are two major aspects commonly discussed; the guidelines didn't say they are the only ones. Nevertheless, how is this film more significant than the song? Clearly, I'm becoming more concerned about you, as I am not the only one who has some doubts about your interpretations. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, closing any RMs at all that have both supports and opposes is a guarantee that other editors will "become more concerned about you" and "have doubts about your interpretations". It's the amount of grief from the griefers that varies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If some may have "doubts" about me, then what about these: Talk:Lovin' You? --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Language barrier perhaps. Perhaps this: If one closes any RMs at all that have both supports and opposes, one is guaranteed that other editors will "become more concerned about [one]" and "have doubts about [one's] interpretations". -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:IAR -- if JHJ argues with primary topic that the film is primary, I say that the people involved in this poll indicate that the disambiguation page should sit at the plain location. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR isn't a reason. It's a reason for another reason: there needs to be a benefit to the encyclopedia in ignoring the rules. What is the benefit here to ignoring the rules? The detriment is the majority of the readers looking for the primary topic will have additional inconvenience, and that inconvenience is greater than the convenience gained by the minority of readers looking for one of the other topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I must differ: according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is "no single criterion" for defining a primary topic, even when usage and long-term significance are most-discussed criteria. --George Ho (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, obviously, per User:Kauffner and the just-closed RM above. The proposed move would inconvenience the majority of readers coming here in order to reduce the inconvenience for a select few. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming that majority of readers coming here want to read about the film and don't want to read about the song. The evidence for that is questionable. Powers T 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not. I'm observing it from the information provided by User:Kauffner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, if I must be pedantic... you're assuming that the numbers reflect actual topical popularity rather than being a quirk of the current organization. And the numbers say very little about how many readers of this article are also interested in the article on the song, because the two topics are very tightly related. Powers T 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not. Assuming the worst case patterns of traffic that can yield the numbers above still leaves this topic primary. If your claim is that readers here want to read about the song but don't actually navigate to the song to do so, I observe then that the current arrangement is also serving them, since they are reaching the sought information on the first page they land on. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you're wrong; being pedantic again, the worst case patterns of traffic that yield the numbers above is that 0% of the audience wanted to learn about the film and there's a significant percentage of users that didn't notice the tophat to the disambiguation page, and thus didn't find the information they were looking for. Although that's just the extreme case, this uncertainty means that we don't know how many users arriving to this page didn't want to learn about the movie, so we can't use the statistics of page views to find the importance of usage of this topic. Wikipedia pageviews is an inherently weak measure of usage and shouldn't be used alone; determining a primary topic should be done by a consensual agreement after analizing of all criteria listed at PRIMARYTOPIC. If there's disagreement about the existence of a primary topic, the default structure defined by WP:Disambiguation is that the base name should be a disambiguation page. Diego (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kauffner in the closed move discussion above. Re noetica and powers, though I agree that we can't know for sure, the 32,000 to 5,200 to 1,300 stats are a persuasive, and a compelling reason that the film is the primary topic. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popularity is not our only criterion for determining primacy. In this case, I feel there are other factors that we should consider. Powers T 14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that we don't have any evidence that the film is no longer the primary topic. I note that the proposer of the previous move request didn't actually provide any evidence that, for example, the song is popular as well (other than the fact that he has not heard of the film but has heard, and likes, the song). There needs to be a compelling reason for moving an article away from where it has been since 2002 and I don't see one. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What about strong evidence that the film is the "primary topic" other than numbers? True, I should have mentioned evidence. --George Ho (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Failing other evidence, the numbers are strong enough. As Kauffner points out, they are skewed toward the film. Therefore, ceteris paribus of course, we should stick with the status quo. --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Are numbers the only evidence enough to make this film a "primary topic"? If so, why do we supports point out criteria, with or without evidence? Whatever I said in criteria is evidence by expressing my interpretations. Are our arguments not as strong as number? Are numbers strong evidence? Is bigger popularity of the film strong evidence? --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, we can't exactly look at evidence that is not provided. And, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly but your knowing or not knowing about something is not evidence. Just the facts ma'am. Also, again if I understand your question correctly, you need to back up a policy point with some evidence. Otherwise we'll just be meaninglessly throwing blue links at each other. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a sir, not a "ma'am". --George Ho (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd guessed that. See this. --regentspark (comment) 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not every decision for primary topic can be based on hard evidence. Each case is unique; in this case, we have a very popular song, after which the film is named, and which the subject of the film choreographed (famously). All numbers aside, in this specific case it seems highly odd to someone familiar with Fosse and Chicago to treat this as the primary topic for this widely used phrase. Powers T 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      See, this may be the best argument in the whole discussion an has gone almost unnoticed. All three main topics (the film, the song from Chicago and the various albums) are connected by the author of the musical. The film title (and argument, according to the plot summary) is a clear homage to the song in the musical, which is the topic in all the other articles. If any one should be the primary topic it should be the song that originated all the others. The author of the movie didn't think of it as the primary topic. The number of page visits has not been related to the film in any meaningful way, and there's a well-reasoned argument to support another article as primary. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the existence of a primary topic should be established by consensus, which we don't have here, so per policy we shouldn't have any primary topic navigation structure. Diego (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no evidence that the 32,000 visits were looking for the film, only that they typed the plain string without disambiguation; so Kauffner's "stats" argument is a really weak case for supporting the film as primary topic. Even if they all were, there are 69,697 at least 9751 visits that weren't looking for the film. So far, the stats is the only argument opposing the move, and it's not convincing. Diego (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tough but the four other stub articles called "All That Jazz" just don't compete with the movie. The current hatnote on the movie page provides equal convenience to those seeking the song. —  AjaxSmack  22:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Equal how? Powers T 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Step one: search "All That Jazz". Step two: click on "All That Jazz (song)". It's the same process whether the movie or the dab page resides at "All That Jazz". —  AjaxSmack  00:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there's one step more for those wanting to find the Ella Fitzgerald and Ute Lemper albums. "Don't compete with the movie" is not the criterion established by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - it's "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined", which doesn't happen here. Diego (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support suggested moves I'm wondering if the opposers are aware that the film name is derivative of the song name. Also, the google results are just typical internet bias. With that in mind, and since we actually do have a dab page for this, the dab page should be the primary link: All That Jazz. The point of this is navigation, not a popularity contest. - jc37 00:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Has anyone even noticed that Kauffner's links, specifically cited in the closure of the previous RM, were technically flawed? The DAB page is not correctly linked. That is minor in itself; but it is suggestive of the woefully low standard in that discussion and in that closure decision. More importantly, has anyone properly taken note of the objection that I raised, and raise again now? You wonder why these discussions go on and on, and why the tone gets more and more heated? It would not do that, if people would simply pay attention to each other and answer questions. Let's go through it slowly, now.
1. Kauffner made this submission:

The movie got 32,000 page views in the last 90 days, the song got 5,200, and the DAB got 1,300 [corrected link]. It is true that the song is far more notable than these numbers suggest.

2. I objected:

... please explain your grounds for assuming, as you seem to, that all or even most views of the article All That Jazz were by satisfied readers – readers, I mean, who were looking for an article on the film? We cannot tell how many came from a Google search, for example, and gave up on Wikipedia and clicked instead on one [of] the other hits, further down on the results page of their Google search.

To expand: If the title people are selecting to examine is just All That Jazz, they could be looking for all manner of things. We have no idea. They might have found the title from a Google search (as I say), or from an internal Wikipedia search. Currently when they progressively type in "all that j..." they get eight prompts. The first is simply "All That Jazz", and the remaining seven have nothing to do with the film. They cannot know if there are further prompts to come; and by the time they get to "all that jazz..." the prompts remain the same. How many readers will know that they have to type "all that jazz d..." before a prompt appears for All That Jazz (disambiguation)? There are no grounds for assuming that readers have any idea they must do that! Similarly for Google. A simple search on "all that jazz" gives the Wikipedia article All That Jazz at the top, and the article All That Jazz (song) way down at about 70th position. The disambiguation page does not occur, in the first 100 hits! How is that useful to anyone seeking information from Wikipedia? How does the present arrangement suit our worldwide readership? Some of them will be after a conspectus: an overview of cultural significances for the phrase "all that jazz". How will they find that, with our present titling?
 
3. Kauffner responded, in any case:

The proposed title is less common and less recognizable, so I expect this move to lead to a drop in readership for the film article on the order of 5 to 10 percent. ...

How is that reasonable? How does that meet the objection? Of course the film is referred to less frequently as "All That Jazz (film)", and more frequently than "All That Jazz". Who denies that? In nearly all contexts of utterance, there will be something to indicate that the topic is films, right? But there is no context for a Wikipedia title. It must stand on its own. This is a general encyclopedia, and there is nothing to give any hint that the topic is a film, and not a song or any of the other possibilities. Some of those possibilities are marked in the elusive DAB page – for readers lucky enough to happen upon it, or who have been inconvenienced by downloading the present article (faute de mieux) and luckily noticing a hatnote. Not all readers can be expected to do that, or want to do that. None should have to!
Now, until all of that is addressed – without mechanical gestures toward contested policy and guideline provisions that may or may not be helpful – this discussion is futile. Like many RM discussions these days, it will be dominated by mouthing of platitudes – which will inevitably yield rhetoric in response, when it is found that argument carries so little weight. It may also be, as the first RM here was, closed by an ideologically committed and involved admin who ignores the essential detail and just goes ahead, invoking evidence that is already questioned or already refuted.
A disgrace; and unworthy of the Wikipedian ideals of dialogue and rational decision-making.
NoeticaTea? 01:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) ☺♪♥[reply]
  • Support—the first one was closed as "don't move"? Huh? I agree with Ho that primary topic is a very fuzzy thing here. No to move it would be a disservice to our reades. Tony (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the degree of stubbiness is really quite irrelevant, IMHO. The crux of the matter is that the title is sufficiently ambiguous because of the number of different subjects it can apply to. Without one that is overwhelmingly more common or obvious target for readers' search, the lead page should be the DAB page to the others. As a reader, I would be astonished to land where it lands ar present. Just being "more common" doesn't cut it, it should be at least 50 times more common for it to be a logical usurper of the name against the competition. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I too think the previous close was perhaps biased, as JHunterJ has become quite a proponent of the naming of primaries where things remain terribly ambiguous. Kauffner claims that "If an article gets more than half the relevant traffic, as is the case here, it is primary 'with respect to usage,' and we don't have to look any further," but many editors have rejected this interpretation, suggesting that a topic must be at east "much more popular" or even "overwhelmingly more popular" to win primarytopic by this criterion, because otherwise we're saying we're OK letting up to half the clicks on the topic be in vain. With readers in mind, we should try to do better. Even if the margin is fairly large, there is little evidence that this traffic count implies "usage" of the article arrived at. We have a very good convention for disambiguating between films, songs, and such of the same name, and this is a good place to stick to that convention, not to toss it out based on numbers and accept the most ambiguous form as the article title when it really would serve readers better as a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:D and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as there's no consensus that we have a primary topic here; both the song and the film are reasonably expected targets when searching for the title, and no strong reason is given to prefer any of them over the others. This should be done by a combination of all the criteria given in the guideline and none of them should be dropped.
The argument that this page is primary is supported by just one of the many criteria that should be contemplated - the weakest one. The number of Wikipedia pageviews is a really weak criterion to determine that a topic is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (the guideline actual criterion), and it has not been confirmed by the other criteria defined by PT - such as Google hits or incoming links.
A primary topic is an assertion by Wikipedia editors that "we know what you're looking for": determining that there's a primary topic, when there are reasonable alternatives, is an extremely arrogant thing to do; we're telling the readers what they should be looking for. I'm also worried by the comment by JHunterJ that if "none of the topics appear to have the long term significance", then the long term significance criterion should magically be dropped from the guideline; in fact, that's a strong reason for not having any of the articles as primary topic. Also the comment by Kauffner that "it is primary "with respect to usage," and we don't have to look any further"; of course we have to look at all the criteria defined at PRIMARYTOPIC; only one of them won't cut it. Diego (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a long time, usage was the only criteria for a primary topic. The "long term significance" standard was added to make easier to designate a serious academic subject as primary, for example if there was a pop culture topic that used the same name. So the intention of this standard is quite the opposite what is being claimed. By the above interpretation, no topic can ever be primary for any ambiguous term, since someone can always come up with another criteria somewhere that it doesn't meet. That would make the whole WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section of the guideline rather pointless, not to mention all the RfCs it took to write this section. It's arrogant to try to make to easier for the reader to find what he is looking for? This is relativism gone mad. I have to say it one more time: Putting a disambiguator in the title of the film does not improve access to the song. The song will remain at the same lemma, and it will remain one click away for a reader browsing the base lemma. Kauffner (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can have primary topics, for topics that are really primary; nobody is disputing William Shakespeare or The Beatles. And yes, it's arrogant to think that you know what readers are looking for better than themselves, based on some dubious statistics that are unreliable and for which you don't know the meaning. It's arrogant to propose as an improvement a solution that would add one click for a significant percentage of the readership that weren't looking for the film. Not counting the Golden Girls and Sealand episodes pages, the current layout sends one in four readers to the wrong article - and that's assumming that all visitors of All That Jazz were looking for the movie, which is dubious; even if you ignore All That Jazz (song), you're forcing one more click for one in ten users, a 10% failure rate which is pretty high. As for the guideline, "usage" is not even well defined - is it usage of the topic in search engines? In reliable sources? Usage of the Wikipedia page with respect to other pages? The guideline is ambiguous at best; the safest way to interpret it and serve the widest possible audience of readers is to use disambiguation pages in all but most the clear-cut cases where consensus for a primary topic is unambiguous and easy to build. This is clearly not the situation here. Diego (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Kauffner and stats (32,000; 5,200; 1,300). There seems to be a lot of policy discussion, in this and many other primary topic RMs, which would be more usefully hammered out in a policy venue. It's hard to even pick out and appropriately weigh germane arguments of exception specific to this case with all the misplaced policy arguments clouding discussion of the instance. A primary point of WP:MOS is consistency in formatting so that readers can get information with the least impedance from variable display of said information. Even if that organization is imperfect, its predictability is valuable. Therefore, we should basically go with guidelines, but we can advocate change to guidelines as seen fit. But one issue at a time. ENeville (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual statistics in the last 90 days are 31,911 visits for the film, 9751 69,697 visits for all the other pages linked from the DAB. If pageview stats is the only criterion used, it does not support having the film as the primary topic as it is much less not "much more" likely sought that all the other topics combined. At least one person in four is being misdirected, which is a 25% failure rate. Diego (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my response below, same timestamp. ENeville (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's do the math, why don't we? 31911 / (31911 + 2080 + 2043 + 1386 + 724) = 0.83659 ==> The film is 84% of relevant traffic. All That Jazz (The Golden Girls) is a redirect and an unlikely search term. "All That Jazz" (Sealab 2021) is not even a redirect, and also unlikely search term. Wendy van der Plank and Crocodiles (album) are obviously not relevant. Kauffner (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an incorrect calculation: 31911 / (31911 + 5662 + 2043 + 1386 + 724) = 76.477% for the last 90 days. In the last 30 days: 10107 / (10107 + 2080 + 637 + 447 + 224) = 74.894%.... Well, that's 10% less than you think. If we could include the dab page, 503 views in April, and 1377 in last 90: 74.034% in 90 and 72.203%.... If you could include only a song and a film, this result: 10107 / (10107 + 2080) = 82.933%..... I don't know what this means, but I'm certain "Sealab 2021" is a redirect because I tried it myself. We know these statistics are of Wikipedia visits, but how do these numbers reflect the actual visits of other pages that cover either the song or the film? --George Ho (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Yes, let's do the math; surely some equations will make your argument more convincing? But wait: Number of visits to "All That Jazz": 31911; number of visitors wanting to see the film: UNKNOWN; percentage of visitors looking for the film: UNKNOWN/31911=UNKNOWN. No amount of data massaging will change the fact that the statistics don't show what you say they show. Several editors have pointed out the main flaw in your argument, that we don't know the relation between the number of accesses to the page and the number of false hits; you have yet to address that counter-argument. The highest number of visits is for this page, but you all the Opposing !votes have failed to provide evidence that people looking for the search term were specifically looking for the film. The number of visits only show that the string "All That Jazz" is the most likely search for, not that the film called "All That Jazz" is the most likely target for that string; any other article located at this page could very well get the same number of visits. The number of visits will always favor the article currently placed at the plain search term; it doesn't mean that this article has any special likeness to be looked for above all the others. Diego (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kauffner:
You are just not getting it. Again and again at RMs, you come with "evidence" that is then refuted on various independent grounds. Remember Talk:Crêpe, all those months ago? You have to learn from these things!
In this case, where do you answer my primary objection? No, I really mean answer it. The objection is made clear twice above, but once again I repeat it, since you repeat what has already been shown up as absurd. I'll shorten it for you:

Kauffner, please explain your grounds for assuming that all or even most views of the article All That Jazz were by satisfied readers – readers, I mean, who were looking for an article on the film?

I'm still waiting for an answer that actually comes to terms with the question. So should any admin who contemplates closing this – alternatively, your submission and your vote (along with anyone's that relies on your submission, including ENeville's and JHunterJ's) should now be dismissed as immaterial in this discussion, and the move should proceed.
It is plain misleading, and in the present evidential context a plain lie, to say that "the film" has about 32,000 pageviews over the last 90 days. An article whose title gives no indication that it concerns a film has about 32,000 pageviews over the last 90 days.
And then there are the other points made against your claims. These were foolishly and uncritically received in the last RM; must we all waste time chasing such irresponsible assertions this time also?
NoeticaTea? 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC) ♫♪? ☺[reply]
  • Stat check – Diego has asserted a 69,697 number for views linked from the dab, but I don't understand where it comes from. When I just queried stats, I got:
All That Jazz (disambiguation) has been viewed 1363 times in the last 90 days.
Direct links:
All That Jazz has been viewed 31566 times in the last 90 days.
All That Jazz (song) has been viewed 5581 times in the last 90 days.
All That Jazz (Breathe album) has been viewed 2016 times in the last 90 days.
All That Jazz (Ella Fitzgerald album) has been viewed 1366 times in the last 90 days.
All That Jazz: The Best of Ute Lemper has been viewed 717 times in the last 90 days.
Redirects:
All That Jazz (The Golden Girls) has been viewed 30 times in the last 90 days.
All That Jazz (Sealab 2021) has been viewed 30 times in the last 90 days.
All That Jazz (radio series) (nonexistent) has been viewed 11 times in the last 90 days.
Even including redirects, that's 9751 views total for all topics other than the movie. And most of those can't be going through the dab page because it's only been viewed 1363 times. ENeville (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got 38802 visits at List_of_The_Golden_Girls_episodes and 8252 from List_of_Sealab_2021_episodes in the last 90 days. I now see that I should have used the visits at the redirect pages instead of those articles. But hey, if you can use the 31566 views as support for the film, then I can use the list episodes to support the non-film articles  ;-) - it's the same lousy thinking, and my main point all along was that pageviews are not a good measure by themselves anyway. Diego (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm allowed to have a say in this, I think it should be left how it is now. All That Jazz. Not All That Jazz movie. I don't know if many people come to Wikipeida to look for the song All That Jazz and wind up reading about the movie but whenever I think of All That Jazz I automatically think of the movie. Maybe it's because I'm almost 40 years old and remember the movie,whereas younger people might not be familiar with the movie.--BeckiGreen (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look and All That Jazz the song is named All That Jazz (song). So why would anyone want to change All That Jazz to All That Jazz film? I think it should be just left the way it is.--BeckiGreen (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to say anything you want; but personal anecdotes are not a strong argument. I'm almost 40 years myself and haven't seen the movie, but have seen the musical Chicago, so when I think of All That Jazz I automatically think of the song. Should we decide if there's a primary topic based on that? Certainly it shouldn't be decided on just one criterion, when there are several conflicting ones. Diego (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Familiarity", "enthusiasm", and "priority" are alternative criteria to "usage" and "long-term significance". You said it yourself: young people might not be familiar with the movie. Must they know the film exists? Must they read about the film? Must they plan to read about the film? For instance, Christopher Knight (actor) of the Brady Bunch is the popular topic currently, but he is not the primary because he hasn't achieved long-term significance. As Diego said, he's around 40 and has not seen the movie. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. People looking for the film will be largely aware of the song already before reading the article on the film, and the others will be aware of it afterwards, and that the song gave the film its title. So the only possible primary topic is the song, and if that's not supported by other evidence, then there's no primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Oscar[edit]

It also won for Score/Adaptation or Treatment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on All That Jazz (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Aubrey reaction after the topless dance number[edit]

Article currently says "on a highly sexualized number with topless women during one rehearsal and frustrating both Audrey and the show's penny-pinching backers" and that is not quite right.

Joe is having trouble choreographing the number and talks with Aubrey as she is rehearsing by herself and the songwriter playing the piano. She is frustrated with him when talking about their personal lives that he was never faithful to her and he cannot even remember the name of the girl in Philadelphia. He says "That girl meant something to me - her name was sweetheart". Aubrey dances past saying "no". After a few more guesses, he says "I can't remember her name", he repeats that and is inspired to do the highly sexualized choreography.

The show's backers see it being a problem commercially. Joe comes over to Aubrey and says "Oh, I don't think they liked it". She says "I don't know about the audiences, but I think it's the best work you've ever done".

Also, the show's backers were not fighting with Joe over budget so I don't think accurate to say they were "penny-pinching". They were merely given an opportunity to make a lot of money off of their insurance if Joe's death cancelled the show.

I am not comfortable editing the article itself.

Taverngeek (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left some links on your user talk page to aid you in editing the article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All That Jazz (film" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect All That Jazz (film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § All That Jazz (film until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_That_Jazz_(film)&oldid=1209304032"