Talk:Offred (The Handmaid's Tale episode)

Requested move 6 November 2020

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 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Offred → Offred (The Handmaid's Tale episode) – WP:NCTV is very clear that Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Article title (Show Title episode/character/element) - "Offred" is the name of a character on the show, as well as the name of the character in the novel, both of which have different story arcs and character sections. There is absolutely no need for an exception to the guideline here, and in fact, the move history shows that the original usage of this title was for a character article, which the creator of this article moved without discussion to create the episode article. We've already had numerous RMs about these kind of articles and have found a consistent consenous to move them, which is why the guideline reflects that. Gonnym (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not move. Gonnym, The disambiguation page you created was just listing the same fictional character twice and this episode. Where at Wikipedia:Disambiguation did you get the idea that this is correct? Also, I see from your quotation above that you somehow missed the text in the middle of this reading (emphasis added): "When the other element does not have its own article, further disambiguation is generally not necessary. However, always use common sense and best judgment to prevent ambiguity..." Since there are no articles for the character of Offred and you have just made redirects to the same fictional character in two different articles, there is no justification for moving this page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, put the text in the comment in bold, as obviously is it much more important than the actual text in the guideline or the discussion it leads to. Did you read them? See these RMs Talk:Killer Frost (The Flash episode)#Requested move 3 December 2018, Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)#Requested move 15 April 2019 which were in the same exact situation - an article about an episode using the same name as a character from the TV series. In both situations they were moved. There is a reason for this as the episode is much less likely to actually be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC a user would be looking for. Do you really think most users looking for "Offred" are looking for the episode and not the actual character? I find that very unlikely. Also note that per WP:PRIMARYRED, a primary is not automatically the only article created. --Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, I'm not answering your questions until you answer mine. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but you definitely do need to answer Gonnym's questions as you appear to not understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. How could you think that the primary topic for Offred was the episode? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I am way beyond tired of me asking questions or raising points and then the next person ignores them and expects me to answer his questions (I'll point you to threads in my talk archives if you want to see me fruitlessly do this game with baseless allegations, non sequiturs, and asides). He's under no obligation to answer me but thinking that he can ignore what I said and then oblige me to answer him is ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that @Gonnym: never answers your questions in other RMs? Or that generally many other editors don't? But I'll answer for you:

Q1. Gonnym made a dab page including the character Offred. You asked where in Wikipedia:Disambiguation did Gonnym get the idea that this is correct? I answer for Gonnym; the nutshell says "topic" not "title". We disambiguate by "topics" not article titles:

That's it, that's your one question and there is no Q2. Your Q2 is a statement "Since there are no articles for the character of Offred" which is the 180 degrees direct opposite of how disambiguation works. You have confused article titles with content. This is against the nutshell and specific mentions of content in the guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I am not. I am. I did. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf:, I think you bolded the wrong part of the guideline: "When the other element does not have its own article, further disambiguation is generally not necessary. However, always use common sense and best judgment to prevent ambiguity..." Doesn't common sense include looking at the "Offred is" test in searches? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I don't understand what "looking at the 'Offred is' test in searches" means. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

it means searching "Offred is" in Gbooks or news. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, Gotcha. I don't use Google but thanks for clarifying. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOPRIMARY, and move Offred (disambiguation) to baseline, since Offred (character) in both formats, is a more likely PT, as demonstrated by the "Offred is" test in various searches. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The character is primary over the episode. But given there are two versions of the character, the disambiguation page should be the base. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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.