Talk:List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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: Moved. No need to try to put a round peg (this page) in a square hole (our disamb format). (non-admin closure) Red Slash 03:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) → List of Nightmare on Elm Street media – This is not properly a disambiguation page, because most of the entries on the list are partial title matches, which should be removed in accordance with the manual of style rules governing disambiguation pages. There is no suggestion that the various sequels are commonly known just as "A Nightmare on Elm Street" without a qualifier. Rather than eliminate them, and make the page less useful to readers interested in seeing a list of installments in the franchise, I propose to move this to a title appropriate to the existing contents of the page, and convert it from a disambiguation page to a list/set index article. bd2412 T 19:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move, recommend cleanup. It's difficult to follow the below discussion, but I believe the solution is just to return this to conformity with MOS:DAB, as it roughly was here. We could move the page as it is, but if we did we'd have to create another disambiguation page because there are several articles that do have with the same title: A Nightmare on Elm Street, A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), A Nightmare on Elm Street (comics), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game). The present form also seems to be largely redundant with the franchise article. I propose we just restructure this as a normal disambiguation page containing only those entries actually called "A Nightmare on Elm Street", similar to Star Trek (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also several ships called USS Valiant, but we do not have a disambiguation page for them because they are related. That is the case here; all of the topics that share the name are related, which calls for a set index, not a disambiguation page. At this point, another page for only the handful of terms with the identical title would merely be a less informative content fork. bd2412 T 02:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a case for a set index page. First, as you point out, Nightmare on Elms Street 2 through 5 aren't called just "Nightmare on Elm Street", and 3 more sequels have different names entirely. Second, among the items that do have the same name, they're not items of the same type: it's two movies, a media franchise, a video game, and a comics series. This case is more like Star Trek (disambiguation) (which includes all items named "Star Trek" - and none that aren't) than USS Valiant (which only includes ships named "USS Valiant"). The current setup is essentially just shorter fork of the franchise article, and it makes it less easy to find things that are actually called "A Nightmare on Elm Street".--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really make it appreciably less easy to find things that are actually called "A Nightmare on Elm Street", though? There are only a dozen items in the entire article, with all the films neatly arranged in a table, which indicates their logical relationship to one another. It is certainly more navigable than our larger disambiguation pages (e.g. Phoenix, Mercury), so I would suggest that it functions as a navigational device while having enough flexibility to include the small number of films in the series that have a different name. Let's not forget that the purpose of disambiguation pages and indexes alike is not to exist for the sake of existing, but to serve as navigational devices. bd2412 T 03:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the current setup, the franchise article is separated and pipe linked up in the introductory, while the comics and video game are down below the table of movies, and also pipe linked. So I'd say that does make it more difficult to navigate than the usual format. I also don't see a benefit to this page as it is versus the existing franchise article, which contains all the same things. My initial objection was to moving this page while still not leaving a good way to distinguish between articles actually called "A Nightmare on Elm Street"; I wouldn't necessarily object to leaving the other sequels there in the usual format, though I don't know how many readers this actually helps.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Page is not a disambiguation page, and the title should not include (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

In other words, such entries in The Fast and the Furious should be removed, right? George Ho (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that most of the titles currently listed at The Fast and the Furious are partial title matches to the phrase "The Fast and the Furious"? bd2412 T 00:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fast and Furious and Fast & Furious are redirects to that page, so what's the big deal? Also, I wouldn't consider them partial matches, right? As for the proposal itself, the dabpage may be "redundant" to the franchise page, but so is the idea of converting the page to the set index article. The proposal neither resolves nor worsens the matter of redundancy. It's worse than the dabpage, so oppose. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that are not matches should not redirect to a disambiguation page; that only invites confusion. I have now fixed this. Also, it can't be "worse than the dabpage" because a link to a dab is an error that must be fixed, while a link to a set index is fine because a list can be the target of the search itself. bd2412 T 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples relating to fiction, please? George Ho (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are examples relating to fiction. bd2412 T 02:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You separated The Fast and the Furious and Fast and Furious, which should have not been done in the first place. The prior setup was fine as was until it was re-separated. I'm tired now before I can say something further here. George Ho (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of editorial policy. So long as The Fast and the Furious is a disambiguation page, it must comply with WP:MOSDAB, and any title not containing the phrase "The Fast and the Furious" is a partial title match, and must be removed. bd2412 T 03:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the proposal, perhaps you can convert the page into set index WITHOUT changing the title, perhaps? Or that's impossible? ...Well, conversion and improvements won't hurt, so I stroke my vote. But do you have a draft? I apologize for my premature comments without considering your sandbox or draft. Maybe I can switch sides once I see it. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I hope that recent additions change your mind, right? George Ho (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, are you planning to change the title to "A Nightmare on ___ Street" to reflect the absence of the word "Elm" in these additional titles? Are you arguing that someone searching for "A Nightmare on Bourbon Street" is likely to search under the title, "A Nightmare on Elm Street"? Do you have evidence that "A Nightmare on Bourbon Street" is "sometimes referred to" as "A Nightmare on Elm Street", per WP:DABMENTION? bd2412 T 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your earlier question, the set index page would look something like this:

~~<h1>A Nightmare on Elm Street</h1> {{:User:BD2412/A Nightmare on Elm Street}}~~Already converted

Cheers! bd2412 T 12:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cut-and-pasted the whole draft to User:BD2412/A Nightmare on Elm Street. I hope you don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wish you hadn't done that - I'm trying to reduce the number of subpages in my userspace, not increase them. What's wrong with keeping it here? bd2412 T 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain this, but it interferes with the navigation of the talk page. The discussion section would have ended above "A Nightmare on Elm Street" level-one heading. get the idea? George Ho (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also means that when you click the nearest [edit] button under ==See also==, you get nothing to edit. However, putting aside the technical issues, what do you think of the draft? bd2412 T 15:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice draft, but, as I suspected, (near) redundant to the franchise page more than the disambiguation page is. George Ho (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It basically adds one sentence to the beginning explaining the connection between these terms (in other words, demonstrating that they are not really ambiguous), and adds three links to the list, putting all the films in a nice, sortable table. It is therefore more informative and potentially more helpful than a disambiguation page, without losing any ease of use. bd2412 T 15:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the other proposal at Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street for now and reminded others that it will be reopened if this is done. George Ho (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still contend that either the original film article or the franchise article would be primary; this page, if turned into a list, would still only be a thumbnail index for quick reference, and would not be the primary topic for the term any more than it would be as a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will amend my proposal regarding title changes later then and then argue that neither the original nor franchise may not be primary topic. Instead, I propose that this list, regardless, will take over the main title. George Ho (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; the proposed title is too long. Also, the page is already converted to set index already. --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2013 (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.

Requested move 18 December 2016

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: not moved. There is no consensus to move this page. However, there are some valid arguments in creating a disambiguation page at A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation), which could be created separately from this page. That would assist in navigation, and leave this list page intact. (non-admin closure) Brad v 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media → A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) – Bkonrad recently changed the page and the title of the page per previous RM three years ago. I can't challenge the decision directly with the person, and I can't challenge the old RM. Therefore, I am starting a newer, fresher discussion. The title is not the only issue; the page also needs to be reviewed. Does anyone prefer the typical disambiguation page version (which has been) or the currently used version that uses a table format to list the movies? If the former, the title should be the proposed one. If the latter, the title should be the currently used one. George Ho (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is any need for disambigation. All the media listed here is related to the Freddy Krueger franchise so I would just redirect the page to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moving to disambiguation page since we are dealing with partial title matches. Support Betty's suggestion to redirect to the franchise article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect it to the franchise page, it doesn't have content that the franchise page doesn't already have, and all the stuff we'd put on the dab page is already on the franchise page. Daß Wölf 19:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a candidate for a dab page. The closing editor's comments three years ago reflect my thoughts: No need to try to put a round peg (this page) in a square hole (our disamb format). The page as it is seems fine, but I won't be particularly unhappy if it's redirected to the franchise page. — Gorthian (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:DABCONCEPT. bd2412 T 20:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sigh. This is the same situation that happened three years ago when the articles were moved around. Regardless of what is done with the DABCONCEPT page(s), we do need a straight disambiguation page for navigation purposes to enable readers to easily navigate between articles that are called simply A Nightmare on Elm Street (ie, not all articles related to the franchise, but only those with the same name). Someone who goes to A Nightmare on Elm Street when they're actually looking for, say, the articles A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), A Nightmare on Elm Street (comics), or A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), should have a path to get to those topics easily without picking through a full blown article or an elaborate list of all related topics. As such, regardless of what happens here, for the second or third time, we need a basic MOS:DAB-compliant dab page at A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) including these items to link from the hat note, as is done for similar subjects like Star Trek (disambiguation) and Planet of the Apes (disambiguation).

That said, this current List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media article has no reason to exist. It is redundant with A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) (and provides worse coverage), and it is worse for navigating between ambiguously-titled articles than a straight dab page. In fact, several ambiguously titled items are quite difficult to find in the media list - especially on mobile devices - and another doesn't seem to be included at all.

My preference would be to just restore List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media back to a dab page, as it was for over three years. Barring that, List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media should be deleted or merged to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), and we can (re)create a dab page at A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to have a disambiguation page, it would not be this page, but only the two exact title matches, plus the franchise. Those, however, can be addressed in a hatnote. bd2412 T 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412: This article was a dab page with only exact title matches, until it was moved without comment and restructured few days ago.[1] A dab page is necessary as there are 6 articles titled A Nightmare on Elm Street, far too many for a hat note. Either this article is restored to a normal dab page, or we (re)create the dab page again. Either is fine, though I see no reason for this media list to exist, as it's redundant with the franchise article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a dab (or, for that matter, this article) redundant to a franchise page? I'm not seeing the need. bd2412 T 21:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, uh, for navigation. So that people looking for A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) and the others have an easy path to finding their target after they type in or click on "A Nightmare on Elm Street" without having to pick through a bunch of text, tables, or weird sectioning.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the primary likely search topics, a hatnote will do. bd2412 T 22:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 And as I said, there are too many to include in a hat note.

Say I'm a reader looking for A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game). This isn't a "primary likely search topic", but I'm one of several thousand readers a month looking for it. I don't know (and shouldn't need to know) Wikipedia's esoteric internal titling practices, so to look for it, I type in its actual title, "A Nightmare on Elm Street". That brings me to A Nightmare on Elm Street, the original movie. No big deal - if this were like any other article that had a "for other uses" link at the top letting me get to it easily. In this case, however, all I get is a link to A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). To reach the video game link, I have to go to a subsection of a subsection five sections down from the top. Even if I somehow found List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media (which is no longer linked in any hat note), to find the video game I'd have to go down three sections, past a weird table with a bunch of film sequels that aren't actually titled just "A Nightmare on Elm Street". And God help me if I try to do any of this on mobile, where I'd have to know the proper dropdown where my information is located in advance.

This is all horribly inconvenient, and there's no reason for it. All we need is a simple dab page listing exact title matches, to be linked at the top of the base name, as would exist at any other article, and existed here until this "fix" a few days ago.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The video game is so historically insignificant that it barely enters into consideration in a discussion like this. bd2412 T 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think a disambiguation page is required provided the links are prominent and not hidden away at the franchise article, such as was the case here. That said I don't object to actually having a disambiguation page at A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation), provided it sticks to its proper function of disambiguating. Ultimately though the proper course of action regarding this page is to redirect List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media to the franchise article because readers who search out such a topic would expect an encyclopedic treatment of the media, not just a search index. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's historically irrelevant, 2,000 people a month seek the video game article. Far more seek the 2010 film, the franchise article, etc. There's no reason not to have a dab page to get readers to articles they are seeking. I don't terribly care what happens to this goofy media list; I'd rather it just me moved back and turned back into a standard dab page just to preserve page history. However, I'm fine with merging it into the franchise article, as the content is redundant and inferior. It could also be left where it is, though it doesn't really serve a purpose separate from the franchise article. At any rate, as it's unlikely the dab page will be restored, I'll just plan on re-creating it after this is all said and done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are statistics. They say that the original, remake, and franchise are top three most viewed pages. George Ho (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A complication here is that the plain name "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is the name of the series and scenario and also the name of its first episode. (This happened with "Star Wars", until the first episode was renamed to "A New Hope".) About "And as I said, there are too many to include in a hat note" above, a few times I have changed long overloaded many-choice hatnotes into disambig pages. Users need a compact list of all A Nightmare on Elm Street-related productions and items; in A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) some of these names are spread about mixed with text and must be ferreted for. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (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.

Surely a DAB is needed

Two observations:

1. There is no need for a DAB to have an article history at all. Information cannot be copyrighted, and the format of a DAB is standard so there's no creative content to the text.

2. There are more than two articles (two films, a game and a comic series) which could have the title of A Nightmare on Elm Street, so a DAB is needed.

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I requested history split, Andrewa. As for copyright, how would a disambiguation page or a set index exceed fair use or be unfree? Maybe we shall ask at WP:MCQ. George Ho (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a history split be necessary? That's what I don't understand.

(Fair use is not relevant, as fair use is not adequate to make text free content.)

A DAB could not be unfree if properly formatted.

But a set index might become unfree if it contained text that required attribution and the history did not provide this attribution, as this would violate our copyleft licences, so this licensing would then not be available to those who wish to reuse the text. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the first thing, look at above RMs. Nothing to be done about the set index. However, if the latest close is incorrect, we shall discuss the closure with the closer. Also, the DAB was changed recently into set index per other RM. For the set index, which part of it needs attribution? George Ho (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]