Talk:Grand Illusion

Requested move 3 December 2019

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: not moved. No new arguments have been introduced since the 8 November move request at Talk:La Grande Illusion § Requested move 8 November 2019, which was closed with consensus not to move La Grande Illusion to Grand Illusion (film). (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– As per this. None of the other articles are as well-known as the film (as evidenced by search engine results), which is also where the term finds its earliest use in a cultural context. Regarding the film, WP:NCF clearly mandates that the title must be used "under which [the film] has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world." Cinema Clown (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend procedural close. This issue was discussed two weeks ago and the consensus was to not rename La Grande Illusion to Grande Illusion at Talk:La_Grande_Illusion#Requested_move_8_November_2019. This is clearly an attempt to re-run an RFC with a clear outcome simply because the nominator does not agree with the existing consensus. No circumstances have changed in two weeks to warrant a fresh discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. This classic's English-language title, as it appears on the cover of the definitive Criterion Collection edition, is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Grand Illusion in the same manner as Band of Outsiders (another French film which represents a rare Wikipedia departure from the film title used by the Criterion Collection) is the primary topic for Band of Outsiders. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close/oppose per Betty Logan. It does seem a tad what WP:POINTY. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As nominator. Cinema Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Your nomination statement counts for support. Doing this is an artificial inflation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom and Roman Spinner. The film holds long-term significance as primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Betty. Nominator already attempted this RM discussion only two weeks ago, so this is WP:GAMING the system to get the result the nominator wants. The fact that this discussion was initiated on another talk page reflects the nominator's insidious intent. Roman Spinner also participated in that RM discussion and is apparently content to be aiding and abetting this gaming attempt. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negative personal reflections upon motivations of participants in RM discussions should be avoided. As for the nomination itself, it is now centered upon an element which had not been discussed in the previous nomination — this film as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thus, the disambiguation talk page is indeed the appropriate venue for this discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Betty. Already extensively discussed at La Grande Illusion. Trying to get a failed move proposal pushed through by different means is not on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It appears this was already discussed in great detail at Talk:La Grande Illusion and a WP:CONSENSUS was reached there. — Hunter Ka hn 15:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Cinema Clown has now been indef'd for socking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is the most common name used Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:FORUMSHOP. Narky Blert (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2019 (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.

Neurology, cognitive sciences, perception, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, emergence, Gestallt

Bizarre: "Grand illusion" is a concept that is used a lot in neurology, cognitive sciences, perception, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, emergence, Gestallt - but there's no article on it yet. I've kickstarted an article on the concept / term here and added 4 references to research documents on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Visual_perception#Grand_Illusion - Sorry, no more time, cheers

SvenAERTS (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a disambiguation page for articles. You shouldn't be adding links to talk pages to it. MrOllie was correct to revert the edit, but a revert for anything other than obvious vandalism (which this wasn't) should have been accompanied by an edit summary. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]