Talk:22nd of May (film)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Belgium

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 14 April 2015

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: Moved per nomination. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22nd of May → 22nd of May (film) – The 2010 Flemish thriller Tweeëntwintig mei won a Golden Owl Award at Leeds, but nevertheless for mobile users 22nd of May is not distinguishable from May 22 even if not looking for United States National Maritime Day. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. See 1st of May, 4th of July, 2nd of May, 5th of May, 6th of October, 8th of November. Most of the time, it's fine to redirect Xth of XXX to XXX X, but we don't have the same universal convention here. In fact, most of Xth of XXX are redlinks. When another encyclopedic topic exists (a holiday, a work of art, etc.) then it's fine to have the Xth of XXX be the base name. No indication that users have been misdirected in the four years this article has existed. See also WP:TITLECHANGES. Dohn joe (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just cited this, so that itself was an example of potential misdirection. 1st of May, 4th of July, 2nd of May, 5th of May, 6th of October, are all redirects to day festival articles. This is the English translation title of a minor Flemish crime film. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per assisting in navigation to content. This seems to me to be another (Michigan highway) situation in which topic clarification will frequently be of significant benefit. Dohn joe thoughts?

I would still favour the redirect from 22nd of May going to 22nd of May (film) perhaps being protected. Greg Kaye 08:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GregKaye. I don't know about the Michigan highway situation. Here, though, we are only dealing with a handful - less than a dozen - of alternate date formats being used as titles of redirects or articles. As I said above, most of the potential redirects to Month Day have not even been created. So this is not a case where people are using the Xth of XX format to search for or link to anything in WP. We already have agreement that sometimes, the day is not the primarytopic for "Xth of XX" - as in 4th of July. Especially if "22nd of May" is to redirect to the film, as you suggested, I don't see the navigation benefit. Do you see my point? Perhaps you can explain yours better to me. Dohn joe (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe its a very valid point as clarification may only be needed, within Wikipedia, if users had made a all page search on something like 22 All of the topics categories are film or arts related so, yes, its not greatly needed here. However I think that a search engine listing would look better as "22nd of May (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" than more simply "22nd of May - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I don't argue though that there aren't strong arguments for the move. Greg Kaye 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The date is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly there is a strong potential for ambiguity here. Although it's not common to add disambigutation in this type of case it will clearly help users. A rather appropriate move.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The issue is whether the term is ambiguous from the point of view of someone typing in the title as a search term, not whether it sounds ambiguous to you personally. See this Google ranking. Are readers confused by the current setup? Since there isn't even a DAB at the moment, we can't tell. The initializer (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as C-banned user. See sock puppet investigation under Kauffner In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:ASTONISH per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- People who know about the movie won't be astonished. From the Google ranking, it appears that most those who type this term into the search engines do know about the movie. The initializer (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In March there here were 170 hits for 22nd of May [1] and 3925 hits for May 22 [2] so yes it's a more than fair conclusion that users are seeking the date and not the film hence why disambiguation seems appropriate to identify the sepration.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Those stats seem to support the status quo, actually. It appears that the people looking for the date article do not use "22nd of May" to find the date article. Otherwise, the pageviews of the film article would be much higher, wouldn't they? Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting thought however we don't actually know now many of those that visited 22nd of May were actually looking for the date or the film. Likewise we don't know how many of the hits for May 22 were link link or by search. If there was a way we could show that search entries weren't suffering from any misdirection that I would agree with status quo.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support or add a hatnote pointing to May 22. Add a hatnote to May 22 pointing here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2015 (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.