Talk:Charlie's Angels (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved. Revisit if the franchise article is created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– The fact that "Charlie's Angels" was originally the 1970s TV show does not make the old series more or less popular than it might seem. It also does not make the old series totally primary, as well. People can mostly associate the name with the old series, but there are other topics. In fact, even when the information about the old series is intriguing, who else here wants to learn more about the old series? The most challenging topic is the 2000 film. --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For other considerations, The Fox and the Hound and Singin' in the Rain are not original versions, but they are primary, anyway. Doctor Zhivago currently has no primary topic; the novel is becoming less popular than the film itself.

Another topic of "Angels" franchise is the short-lived 2011 version, but who knows? It's not as challenging as the film. George Ho (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support the 1970's TV series can be moved off, but these are all closely related topics, so a franchise article should be written as the top article in the heirarchy. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP, this title should be an article on the franchise with some discussion of how it has evolved over time with each incarnation. The topic is not ambiguous because it is able to be addressed in this way, per WP:DABCONCEPT. bd2412 T 20:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article describes information as if the topic is the franchise. After this proposal, shall portions of this article be split into Charlie's Angels (franchise)? --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could move the initial paragraph to become a franchise stub, and then replace it with a standard {{refer}} with the 70's TV series as the first entry on the list for a conventional dab page. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll agree only if someone creates an article about the franchise. Otherwise, the 1970s series should probably remain the primary topic based on the long-term importance factor. The 2011 series was a very short-lived remake that only lasted eight episodes, and thus doing a hypothetical "ten-year test", people will probably still mostly associate the name with the old series IMO. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone were to create an article on the franchise, that would be the primary topic, and would eliminate the need for a disambiguation page at all, since such an article would discuss all versions of the series. bd2412 T 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the old TV show is still the primary topic. Powers ^T 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Zzyzx11. Until someone creates an article on the franchise (and it passes the usual rigamarole), there is no reason to move. older ≠ wiser 12:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]