Talk:Double exposure (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Move?
[edit]- 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: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Double exposure → Double exposure (disambiguation) –
- Double exposure should redirect to Multiple exposure, since that use of the term is clearly primary; the other listed uses are all derivative of the photographic term. Srleffler (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Unnecessary" doesn't seem to me to be a relevant concern. The guidelines specify that if a particular topic is the primary one for the term, that topic gets the title and the dab page goes at "<title> (disambiguation)", so the only open question is whether or not the photographic usage is primary in this case. Nearly all of the listed entries are to works of art whose titles are references to the photographic use of the term. The photolithographic usage is so-named because of its similarity to the photographic technique. The only listed usage I can see that isn't clearly derivative of the photographic term is the blackjack game (where two cards are exposed to view). Even there, the reuse of the photographic term may have been intentional. I don't think one can argue that these other relatively rare usages of the term are sufficient to prevent one from considering the photographic usage of the term to be the primary one here, so it would be very hard to make a case that the page should not be renamed.--Srleffler (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. In this context, unnecessary is a completely spurious argument. Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Unnecessary" doesn't seem to me to be a relevant concern. The guidelines specify that if a particular topic is the primary one for the term, that topic gets the title and the dab page goes at "<title> (disambiguation)", so the only open question is whether or not the photographic usage is primary in this case. Nearly all of the listed entries are to works of art whose titles are references to the photographic use of the term. The photolithographic usage is so-named because of its similarity to the photographic technique. The only listed usage I can see that isn't clearly derivative of the photographic term is the blackjack game (where two cards are exposed to view). Even there, the reuse of the photographic term may have been intentional. I don't think one can argue that these other relatively rare usages of the term are sufficient to prevent one from considering the photographic usage of the term to be the primary one here, so it would be very hard to make a case that the page should not be renamed.--Srleffler (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support Just to note, I originally tagged the page for dab cleanup mainly for issues with formatting. At the time, I believed that multiple exposure was likely the primary meaning of double exposure and looking at it again I still think this is the case. A quick google search also suggests this is the primary meaning. If multiple exposure is the primary usage then the page should be moved per WP:DABNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. France3470 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Agree that the photographic term is the primary meaning. Even taken together, the other meanings listed at the DAB don't come close. Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support, for reasons given above--Srleffler (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC).
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.