Talk:Kolossus

Requested move 23 January 2018

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: no consensus for the original move of the page away from Kolossus at this time, so the article has been returned to that title. The history of the disambiguation page (currently a redirect) remains at Kolossus (disambiguation). Of course, discussion of further moves can proceed if necessary, but let's get back to square one as this discussion did not result in a clear consensus. Dekimasuよ! 22:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kolossus (album) → Kolossus – revert of undiscussed obviously controversial move contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (no other uses of Kolossus with articles on WP) В²C ☎ 22:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I submitted this as a technical request to revert an undiscussed unilateral move of this page and did not provide any justification beyond that because none should have been necessary. But now that it has been converted to a formal request, here it is: We have only one article about a topic named "Kolossus" on Wikipedia, and this is it, so it should be at Kolossus. Since the unilateral and undiscussed move was made and my technical revert was submitted, the argument has been put forward that because the 2015 film Mega Shark vs. Kolossus gets more page views than this one, Kolossus should be a dab page listing both. But no evidence has been presented that any reliable source refers to that movie as "Kolussus", or that anyone would be likely to search for that movie using the term "Kolossus", so honestly I don't see the relevance of comparing page view counts with that article. --В²C ☎ 00:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: Or move Kolossus (disambiguation) to Kolossus?, unless the music album is likely to stay a dominant meaning for a long time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine ONCE we had another use of Kolossus with an article on WP. Before that moment, it's premature to disambiguate the title of the only use of that name we have on WP. But that was not the situation when In ictu oculi unilaterally disambiguated the title without discussion or even so much as an explanation in the edit summary, which is why I requested the revert, per policy. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either way is fine given that B2C has already moved Kolossus (disambiguation) out from baseline. page views indicate the 2015 film with the robot Kolossus is getting 60 views a day, the 2008 Norwegian album which only charted in Norway is getting 6 which suggests that there is no automatic subject for "Kolossus". In print material Kolossus is either Sylvia Plath's ouija board muse or the 2012 alternative history novel. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- THEN CREATE THE ARTICLE BEFORE DISAMBIGUATING THE ONLY USE OF THAT NAME ON WIKIPEDIA. And for Chrissakes, how about explaining WHY you are moving stuff in the Edit Summary of your moves!!! #NotThatHard. --В²C ☎ 23:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above page views link is in fact there in the edit summary. If you are following my work then you would also see the creation of a dab page, upload of the the DVD box to the film, addition of sources and correction of links. None of that is cause for SHOUTING or swearing. If you genuinely believe that this 2008 Norwegian album is the default meaning of the spelling Kolossus then so be it. But I see no evidence for that in page views nor in print sources. As for the idea that anything that occupies a title is automatically default subject that is a view that is a view that is evidently not the case, Hurricane again and many other examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page views link which compares the views of a two titles, without explanation, does not explain the move. I didn't and no one should have to sift through your history to try reverse engineer WTF you're up to. That's why there are talk pages. That why there is the WP:RM process. That's why there are edit summaries. USE THESE COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, please. --В²C ☎ 00:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More shouting and swearing. Best to let page views and print sources above speak for themselves. A very happy and productive editing day to you. However if the album does go back to primary then it will need a hatnote to point to the other subjects. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had already added the hatnote[1], of course, after I reverted your undiscussed move as much as I could. --В²C ☎ 20:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support reversal of this recent undiscussed move. B2C unfortunately posted this under "Uncontroversial technical requests" instead of "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" at WP:RM; otherwise it should have been handled as an automatic technical request. There is no other article currently on WP that needs to use the title "Kolossus". Station1 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot about that section! Thanks! --В²C ☎ 01:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The malformed page move wasn't helpful, but the dab page should be at the base term. The character Kolossus in the film Mega Shark vs. Kolossus is a perfectly viable target for the term "Kolossus", the article being at a different name is irrelevant. The other three entries are also perfectly valid per MOS:DABMENTION. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind, I see that In ictu oculi did it properly and it was B2C who messed it up. Consider this an Oppose, the dab page should be moved back to the base term. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's messed up? --В²C ☎ 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should have reverted the move properly instead of moving just the dab page. Now everything is in the wrong place. Also you should revert yourself on the dab page, everything you removed are valid entries. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have reverted but could not due to technical reasons, so I did as much as I could and made a technical request at RM. Instead of doing the revert for me, an admin created this RM. It's a cluster. As to the dab page edits, I justified each removal on the talk page and would be happy to discuss that reasoning there. --В²C ☎ 19:58, 25 January 2018 (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.