I would like to change the order of entries on this dab page, to have the film appear first and the song second. They are currently organized chronologically, but due to their highly disparate usage statistics, I think ordering by use would be preferable. The following stats are typical for the three articles on this dab page:
I have moved this dab page back to its prior title, as a discussion first needs to occur to determine if any of the subjects meet the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A good idea might be to get more up-to-date search results than those listed above. If you all like, go ahead and open up a formal move request if you want a larger consensus than just editors here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
Oppose: We have three articles that use the term "Dazed and Confused". Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic should be what readers are most likely to look for. Here, none of these topics have primary importance, so the focus is on primary usage. According to this, the film has been viewed tens of thousands of times this month, and the song and the magazine show only a couple of thousand views. Furthermore, the disambiguation page shows even fewer visits than to the articles about the song or the magazine. This means that when readers search for "Dazed and Confused" and arrive at the article for the film, very few of them go to the disambiguation page, which means they are where they want to be. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Weak support. No real primary topic, so think disambiguation should probably be at Dazed and Confused, especially seeing as the film has taken its name from the song. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The base name had about half a million hits during 2010, while the magazine and song had about 100,000 between them. Even if all those passed through the base name, then that leaves an overwhelming number of accesses stopping at the film. The film is clearly the primary topic off page accesses. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I'm inclined to think the film is the primary topic and there's been no argument here that it's not the primary topic. (A statement that there is "no real primary topic" is not an argument.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was that, for me, there is no clear frontrunner deserving of the primary topic spot. Whilst there seem to be more hits for the film, as it is named after the Led Zeppelin song, some weight has to be given to the song over the film. Therefore disambiguation seems to me to be the correct article to be at the base name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Support The film isn't the primary topic (and neither is the song, for that matter). D&C should be the disambig page to avoid incorrect incoming links. Lots of Led Zep articles seem to link to the film. Lugnuts (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - That's too bad about the led zep links, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. If lots of Led Zep articles link to the film, does that not negate the page statistics everyone keeps quoting? A quick and simple Google search for Dazed and Confused shows a fair split between the film and Led Zeppelin, with the magazine being the first result. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a factor that can be considered, but no, it doesn't "negate" the page view statistics, which are another factor. Since (as I understand it) the articles are linking to Dazed and Confused, which has never been the title of the article about the song, what it indicates to me is that a) the links should be corrected and b) that users working on the Led Zeppelin articles may be more likely to assume that the LZ song is located here, and less likely to check that their links are going to the right place. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
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.