Talk:Lady L

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

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 22 March 2024

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: Lady L not moved; Lady L. moved. I see an overall consensus that the period in the novel's article title is insufficient disambiguation, which means that any titles not found to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be disambiguated. However, opinions were divided as to whether the film was the primary topic, or whether there was WP:NOPRIMARY.

The argument for the film's primary topic status was based on its pageview lead over the novel (WP:PT1); the argument against its primary status was that the film was based upon the novel. Questions of long-term significance (WP:PT2) were not raised. The NOPRIMARY argument attracted a numerical majority; however, it also contradicts the guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which states that [b]eing the original source of the name is also not determinative. By contrast, the argument for the film's primary topic status was based on the primary topic criteria. Thus, when level of policy backing is taken into account, I see a consensus that the film is the primary topic for "Lady L". The overall result is that the novel's article title becomes disambiguated, while the film's article retains its current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady L → Lady L (film)
Lady L. → Lady L. (novel)

– For disambiguation. The film gets more pageviews but it was based on the novel so it's best to say no primary topic. In any event whether the initials have a period or not is trivial. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and probably make a DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and create dabpage at basename. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first. The film is clearly the primary topic, by a factor of at least 10:1 [1][2], and with only two topics we don't need a dab page, just a hatnote. Neutral on second. Station1 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dab creation. It's only two articles, so a hatnote is more appropriate. A hatnote between Lady L and Lady L. looks a bit silly when typed out in a sentence but doesn't really present any issues for readers looking for one or the other - whichever they type, they'll get to an article that is either what they were looking for, or only one click away from it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This line of argument doesn't make sense. If neither is the primary topic when we must have a DAB. There's no evidence that including or excluding the period makes one more or less likely to be looking for the novel versus the film, which would be required for the current situation to make sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If neither is the primary topic then we must have a DAB" applies only if the two titles would be identical. Here the two titles are not identical, so hatnotes suffice to avoid possible confusion between similar but not identical titles. A 2-entry dab page does nothing for the reader that a hatnote can't do; it just puts an unnecessary extra step in their way. Station1 (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't disambiguate articles by randomly perturbing one of their names in a way that could also apply to the other one. That's what this is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your first sentence, but sources, book cover, title page, movie poster show it's not random in this case. Anyway, the dot is minor enough that I don't oppose adding "novel", even if it's technically unnecessary, but the film is still the clear primary topic. Station1 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearer for disambiguation. Cfls (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.