Jump to content

Talk:Sattam Oru Iruttarai

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

Requested move 1 November 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: No consensus emerged from the discussion (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sattam Oru Iruttarai (1981 film) → Sattam Oru Iruttarai – While this film was a milestone in Tamil cinema, the only other film with the same name - the 2012 remake - hardly achieved the same iconic status and recognition. So this borders on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:NCF and Sattam Oru Iruttarai (2012 film), there are two films so we let those looking for either find what they are looking for. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCF and neither of them look like they could be the primary topic. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 19:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both of you behaved the same way at Thillu Mullu (1981 film), but the majority of editors voted to move it to simply Thillu Mullu. This is in a similar situation, and the above-linked WP:TWODABS states, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." This film is clearly the primary topic as the 2012 film is a remake of it, hence the reason it has the same title. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary topic is not about where the origin of a name is from. For instance, the planet Mars is the primary topic for Mars, even though its name comes from the Roman god Mars. Primary topic is about which article a reader is most likely to be looking for when they search for a given term. And you have not demonstrated that people are more likely to look for the original film rather than the remake. Sometimes the remake is actually the primary topic, rather than the original, just look at Battlestar Galactica for instance.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 January 2017

[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: No consensus, so not moved BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Sattam Oru Iruttarai (1981 film) → Sattam Oru Iruttarai – The 1981 film, a milestone in Tamil cinema, is clearly the primary topic as the 2012 travesty was named after it and hardly gained the same recognition. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, as neither of them appear to be the primary topic. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but relisting. I see no awards for either, and the opinion of nom that one is a travesty carries no weight and should have been left out... if anything it weakens the case. But it's now some years since the remake, and the earlier film seems to have quite enough critical acclaim to be considered primary topic, versus the remake that has minimal significance. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The split in reader interest between the two articles seems pretty even in this case, so that would suggest that neither of them is primary topic. But I am not much in favor of having disambiguation pages with just two links on them. We might as well save a click for the half of people who are searching for a one of the movies. And I think it's fair enough to use the fact that the 1981 version is the original as a tiebreaker in this case. TheFreeloader (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It does not seem that there's a very clear primarytopic case here, and the present disambiguation page, even though it has only the two items, seems like the best way to assure that the reader finds the article that they want. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, that's not the way. It's a case of WP:TWODABS which says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Besides, there is already a hatnote in the 1981 article saying "For the 2012 film, see Sattam Oru Iruttarai (2012 film)". That should help readers get where they want. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's if there is a primarytopic. I and others argue that there is not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No way to tell whether the older film should occupy the base title. The exact film title itself is not easy to type. The 2012 film can't be the primary topic either. If the statistics say that the views are closer to each other, the primary topic might not exist. By measuring significance, neither article currently tells readers how one is more significant than the other. Sources might not explain much, but non-English ones might explain the film. For now, retain the status quo. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, you got it wrong! You say neither of the two articles says which is more significant, but anyone would easily agree with the 1981 film because of it is a milestone that it propelled it's lead actor to stardom (courtesy). You didn't seem to notice me quoting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". The remake has none of that. There is also a reason why The Rocky Horror Picture Show does not have the (1975 film) extension in the article name, even though it has a 2016 remake. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your position. However, the way you said looked as if the film made the actor notable, not the other way around. I want to quote WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, but I can't Wikilawyer either a lot or too much. However, I'll rephrase what it says: because criteria are not absolute, we can decide which criteria fit best for primacy. So far, the results seems mixed. Per WP:GUIDES or WP:PAG#Adherence, we can make some exceptions and use our common sense. My sense tells me that the films' impacts toward real-life were very minimal at best. Now for the articles... Re-reading the article, the old film might have inspired films about India's law system. However, I don't see how it impacted India's real-life law system itself. Not all originals are automatically primary. Reading the page about the remake, I see portion about casting. If plot synopses and a little more are added, we might revisit this. By the way, both films are nothing compared to Rocky Horror. George Ho (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Both oppose !votes in both this and the earlier RM appeal to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name seems to support the move providing the earlier film is primary, as claimed and I think substantiated on the basis of long term significance and now also supported by page view statistics (much as I dislike relying on those). Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndrewA, the problem is that there rarely is a truly absolute film in this case 13,663 views to 10,990 views, that isn't absolute, and younger readers will be looking for the Bindu Madhavi film rather than the film from their parents' era. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I note that the page views shows certain weeks this year when the 2012 film goes above the 1981 film. That isn't the kind of graph we'd expect for a clear primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you type "NTR" in Google images search, you'd expect results showing N. T. Rama Rao, but you'd instead get those of his namesake grandson (due to how much media coverage he gets). Still would it be justifiable to move NTR Sr's article name? This is in a similar situation. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IIO, again I see your bias in favour of these hypothetical "younger readers". Aside from your lack of evidence younger readers are more interested in the remake, Wikipedia is not just for you children. You children are not given more importance than all other readers. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. In ictu oculi's argument seems like a WP:RECENTISM bias. —Vensatry (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
And again 72 out of 148 is less than 50% of daily views the original film would pass the second half of PT, but clearly failed to pass the first half. This isn't an issue of "bias" towards younger views this is simply a failure to meet both requirements to invoke WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and deliberately ambiguate an article title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 February 2022

[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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 10:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sattam Oru Iruttarai (1981 film) → Sattam Oru Iruttarai – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The original film has more than double the page views of the remake. Only two items on the dab page, and the other is named after the original. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sattam_Oru_Iruttarai&oldid=1200038737"