Talk:Bolt (film)

Target

David, if you really believe that Bolt (film) should go to the 2008 movie, then a requested move (with some consensus) is in order. It does not make sense to utilize this as a redirect when the best thing that can be done is have Bolt (2008 film) moved to this title. But if that's not accomplished, then the redirect is better off targeting a dab page. I think it's safe to say that the majority of these links end up in dabs anyway. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bolt (film) was the article's title for a while. When it was moved back to Bolt (2008 film), I decided that the issue wasn't clear-cut or important enough to debate. (Either title is reasonable.)

2. The term "Bolt (film)" cannot plausibly refer to anything other than the two motion pictures entitled "Bolt" (one of which is relatively obscure). How does it "make sense" to send readers clearly seeking one of those two films (and probably the 2008 film) to a disambiguation page full of entirely unrelated meanings instead of the article that most of them are attempting to reach (with the only other realistic possibility linked at the top)? This accomplishes nothing other than making navigation more difficult for everyone.

3. You stated in your edit summary that we should "follow WP:BRD on this one." Given the fact that Bolt (film) has led to the article about the 2008 film for most of its existence and the fact that the previous disagreement was resolved on Erik's talk page almost a month before you decided that he was "right," I view your action as the bold one warranting reversion and discussion. —David Levy 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Erik to comment since I don't see consensus on the discussion you linked to. I find it quite odd that you "insist" on it being a redirect to the 2008 film rather than take the article's title. Care to explain further? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt (film) should go to the disambiguation page. If Bolt (film) redirects to Bolt (2008 film), then theoretically it should be at Bolt (film) anyway. Since we have two film articles, there is no reason to treat "Bolt (2008 film)" as "Bolt (film)". I suggest requesting further discussion at WT:FILM. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so. Oh and David, you said in your edit summary that, "... your examples have other plausible meanings. This one has precisely two ...", right? Well, I might have been wrong about Punisher (disambiguation) but Notorious clearly has two distinct films with the same name as well. As for other redirects, there's Sabrina (film), Blood (film), Once Bitten (film), Bunny (film), Sniper (film), College (film), and endless others. The fact that you believe this link should go to some movie that was released last year is irrelevant and violates the spirit of WP:RECENT. That's pretty much all I have to say. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Several "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" (commonly abbreviated to "Sabrina") TV movies were produced.

Three films are listed for Blood.

Notorious (film) should lead to one of the two films, most likely the one from 1946.

Once Bitten (film) should lead to one of the two films, most likely the one from 1985.

Bunny (film) should lead to the 1998 film, as "Bunny" is merely an English translation of the 2005 film's title.

Sniper (1993 film) should be moved back to Sniper (film), as the 2009 film is called "The Sniper." Note that The Sniper (film) already redirects to The Sniper (1952 film).

College (film) should lead to the 1927 film (as College (movie) already does).

2. You refer to the 2008 film as "some movie that was released last year" and imply that I favor it because it's newer than the 1994 film. On the contrary, age has nothing to do with it (as evidenced by my above assessments). The 2008 film should take precedence because it's far better known than the 1994 flop briefly known as "Bolt" before being released on home video under a completely different title.

3. Even if the two "Bolt" films were equally prominent, it still wouldn't make sense for Bolt (film) to lead to the disambiguation page (containing numerous irrelevant links). Redirecting to Bolt (2008 film) would immediately bring 50% of readers to the desired article, with the other 50% needing only to click on a link appearing at the top of the page. The current setup, conversely, forces everyone to scroll past numerous irrelevant links to find the desired article. Again, please explain why this is preferable. —David Levy 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article was located at Bolt (film) for quite a while until you moved it to Bolt (2008 film).

2. The reason to treat "Bolt (2008 film)" as "Bolt (film)" is that we adhere to common usage. The 2008 film is well known, while the 1994 film is an obscure flop that was briefly known as "Bolt" before being released on home video under a completely different title. Our obligation is to make navigation as easy as possible for our users, not to treat well known and obscure subjects equally. Quoth Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "the purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more."

3. Please explain the benefit of having Bolt (film) redirect to the Bolt disambiguation page instead of the article that almost everyone seeks (with the only other realistic possibility linked at the top). —David Levy 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I stated that the disagreement was resolved. Erik dropped the issue and allowed the redirect to Bolt (2008 film) to stand. Until now, I didn't know whether he'd changed his mind or simply decided not to pursue the matter further.

2. I don't know what gave you the idea that I "insist" on using Bolt (film) as a redirect instead of the article's title (or why you wrote that as a quotation). As stated above, I prefer that the article's title be Bolt (film), but I don't feel strongly enough about this to initiate a debate. As long as Bolt (film) leads to the article, I'm satisfied.

3. Again, how is it logical to redirect Bolt (film) to a disambiguation page full of mostly irrelevant links? You haven't explained what the advantage to our readers is (and I've explained the disadvantage).

4. Here's the pertinent history:

On 9 June 2007, Chris1219 moved the article from American Dog to Bolt (film) (reflecting the new title announced by Disney).
Twenty-three minutes later, he moved the article from Bolt (film) to Bolt (2008 film) (because he noticed that another film entitled "Bolt" existed).
Bolt (film) remained a redirect to Bolt (2008 film) until 18 October 2007, when Erik retargeted it to Bolt.
On 6 January 2008, GTBacchus moved the article back to to Bolt (film), noting that "this is the only film called Bolt that has a Wikipedia article." (In actuality, a stub for the 1994 film had been created earlier that day.)
On 24 January 2008, Wheresthechicken moved the article back to Bolt (2008 film) without explanation.
Bolt (film) remained a redirect to Bolt (2008 film) until 9 April 2008, when I noticed the situation and moved the article back to Bolt (film). (I then noticed that we had a stub for the 1994 film, so I added an appropriate hatnote.)
Bolt (film) remained the article's title until 26 November 2008, when Erik moved it back to Bolt (2008 film) and again retargeted Bolt (film) to Bolt.
The following day, rather than continuing the back-and-forth renaming, I decided to leave the article at Bolt (2008 film) and revert Bolt (film) to a redirect.
On 9 December 2008, Erik reverted back, based on his belief that our titles shouldn't favor one use over another. (In actuality, common uses take precedence over uncommon uses.)
I reverted and initiated the aforementioned discussion on Erik's talk page. Erik eventually dropped the issue (and allowed the redirect to Bolt (2008 film) to stand), so I considered the matter resolved.
On 6 January 2009, you reverted the redirect to Bolt. (You know the rest.)

Bolt (film) has existed for 86 weeks, during which it's led to the article about the 2008 film (either as its title or as a redirect) for a total of 69 weeks and to Bolt for a total of only 17 weeks (including the six+ weeks between your original edit and today). So why are you treating the redirect to Bolt as the status quo that I "boldly" changed? —David Levy 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent, and an aside) With all the page moves, this discussion page is attached to the wrong article. Click it, and you'll see the confusion. At least, it was odd for me. SpikeJones (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being redirected to Bolt. You need to click on the link contained within "Redirected from Bolt (film)" to view the actual redirect page. —David Levy 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. there is no reason for Bolt (film) to redirect to Bolt. There is no disambiguity about the fact that I am on a film-related talk page looking for its associated film-related article. I don't care where you end up with this discussion, but the existing redirect for this page is 100% incorrect. SpikeJones (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with you. —David Levy 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(super-indent for clarity) just don't forget to fix it, as it is currently still incorrect here. SpikeJones (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting nowhere here. Perhaps someone should let WP:FILM know about this matter. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the underlying issue isn't specific to films, I'd prefer to invite an impartial cross-section of the community.

But first, can you please simply respond to the above? (In particular, I'm very curious as to how you believe the current setup benefits readers.) —David Levy 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm unable to answer your queries if you don't get to mine. If you missed it the first couple of times, let me say it again: why do you feel the 2008 film deserves to have Bolt (film) as a redirect and not as the page title? Your logic still doesn't make sense. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer that question. Again, I do think that the article about the 2008 film should be located at Bolt (film). That's why I moved it back to that title in April.

Having Bolt (film) redirect to Bolt (2008 film) is my second choice. —David Levy 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said that without giving a legitimate reason. I asked if it had something to do with the film being new, you said no. So why does it have to be a redundant redirect? This is exactly what I fail to understand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking me. Why does what have to be a redundant redirect? —David Levy 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, how come you want "Bolt (film)" to be a redirect to "Bolt (2008 film)"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would prefer that the article be moved back to Bolt (film). —David Levy 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a preference then? With no purpose behind it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly explained the purpose: to lead readers to their intended article in the easiest manner possible.

Someone searching for the term "Bolt (film)" clearly seeks one of the two films entitled "Bolt" (probably the 2008 film), so why should he/she be brought to a page containing numerous unrelated links? What, other than making it more difficult to reach the desired article, does this accomplish? —David Levy 05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. One shouldn't randomly assume that individuals will likely be looking for the newer film with the title "Bolt", especially since being new has nothing to do with it. The Bolt disambiguation page will eventually be revamped (it's tagged for cleanup) so, in time, looking for any one of the films won't become a hassle. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]

There's nothing "random" about the assumption that the 2008 film is a far more likely search target than the 1994 film.

Indeed, age is not a factor. It just so happens that the 2008 film is successful and well known and the 1994 film is unsuccessful and obscure (and isn't even called "Bolt" in its DVD release). Perform a Google search for bolt film or bolt movie, and you'll have a difficult time even finding a page that doesn't pertain to the 2008 release.

But again, even if the two films were equally likely search targets, they'd still be the only two plausible search targets for the phrase "Bolt (film)". In that case, having the term lead to one film's article would mean that 50% of readers would immediately reach the intended article, while the other 50% would find the correct link at the top of the page (instead of having to scroll past numerous unrelated meanings).

Under the current setup, 100% of readers searching for "Bolt (film)" must follow a link, and they must scroll past numerous irrelevant links to find it. Again, what is the advantage? —David Levy 06:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In that case, put in a requested move (you have my support). That's something that should have been done in the first place man, not some odd use of redirecting and hatnoting. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request the move, but I ask that you please self-revert first. Otherwise, with the page redirecting to Bolt, it will appear as though I'm attempting to sneakily change the redirect target through the wrong process.

And if Bolt (film) leads to the article about the 2008 film (either as its title or as a redirect), the hatnote needs to be included. (This is our standard method of linking from a name's primary usage to the secondary usage.) —David Levy 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears SpikeJones beat me to it. Has the request been made? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was point the redirect on this talk page's article tab to a film-related article. It should NOT have been pointed to Bolt, as that - as I stated earlier - is 100% incorrect. If there needs to be a hatnote, then add it - at any rate, the redirect on this page, at the very least, now makes some semblence of sense to the casual observer. SpikeJones (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, chill out. I agree with you guys now so there's no need to make a fuss. Anyway, I have taken the liberty of putting in the request myself since, apparently, no one did so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 withdrawn by proponent. —David Levy 23:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this move as contrary to policy, particularly WP:NCF#Between films of the same name. The relative popularity of different articles is only at stake if one can be moved to the undisambiguated term (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Once terms are disambiguated, the challenge is to find a disambiguator that distinguishes the article from all others, per WP:NCDAB. No policy on choosing parenthetical disambiguators discusses relative popularity of the articles as a factor. See also the discussion at Talk:Twins (1988 film)#Requested move which is relvant to this case. The current name is fine. Bolt (film) should point to Bolt. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NCF#Between films of the same name cites a case in which three films share the same title. In the case of "Twins," four films share that title. In the case of "Bolt," only two films share the title (one of which is obscure and has been renamed to an entirely different title). This is of navigational significance, as we can easily bring the vast majority of users directly to the desired article (while satisfying the rest via a single link).

2. The point is that the 2008 film is the primary topic for the term "Bolt (film)". Someone searching for that phrase is far more likely to seek the popular 2008 movie than the obscure 1994 flop released on DVD under a different title. The fact that "(film)" is a disambiguator is a technicality that makes no practical difference. "Bolt (film)" can only refer to the two films entitled "Bolt," and it almost always refers to the one from 2008. We don't need a policy to use common sense.

3. As stated above, I feel that both Bolt (film) and Bolt (2008 film) are reasonable titles. But having Bolt (film) redirect to Bolt makes absolutely no sense; the term cannot refer to anything other than the two films, so that accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making navigation more difficult. Even redirecting it to the 1994 film would be more practical. —David Levy 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to weigh in on either side of this discussion, Bolt (film) might also refer to a 1997 short film for which we might reasonably one day have an article. Take that for whatever it's worth. :) PC78 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. This could be addressed via the same hatnote directing readers to the 1994 film. —David Levy 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as unnecessary. Bolt (film) should be deleted as should Bolt (movie). No redirects are necessary. This is based on how things are searched for. The common search term is just "Bolt". Enter that in the search box and you get a list in sequence of "Bolt", Bolt (1994 film), Bolt (2008 film), Bolt (2008 movie), Bolt (climbing), Bolt (comics), Bolt (crossbow), Bolt (DC Comics), Bolt (disambiguation), Bolt (film). Searchers will go directly to whichever film they want as the films are #2 and #3 on the list. --NrDg 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "Title (film)" format is familiar to many people. If I sought the article for a movie entitled "Bolt," I would type "Bolt (film)" without even waiting for anything else to appear in the search field. —David Levy 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was testing this the first thing that came to mind was bolt film without the (). The search box is a pretty powerful feature in Wiki. I think we should optimize searches around using it. In actually searching for "bolt film" the second listing was for Nuts & Bolts (film), the third listing was for Bolt (1994 film). Either way, I still think a move is unnecessary. The current redirect to the most likely desired search result with a hatnote there is sufficient. There is really no compelling reason to have the most popular search result have the undifferentiated suffix when the redirects achieve the desired goal equally well. --NrDg 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As long as Bolt (film) leads to the overwhelmingly likely target, I'm satisfied. —David Levy 20:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Rogerb67 does make a good point. ATM, I'm neutral on the hatnote. I just found out that Halloween (1978 film) does the same thing anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you were the proponent and no one else has supported the move, I've de-listed the request. —David Levy 23:15, 22 February 2009 (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.