Talk:Love Stories

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Stories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.oscars.org/pressreleases/97.11.24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Love Stories → Love Stories (film) – Not particularly notable, averages single-digit daily pageviews. See dabpage at Love Story. 162 etc. (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support the film has 87 views but the Eliane Elias album has 23, the ABBA album has 14, the episode has 3. Romance film has 12,356 and Romance novel has 7,702[[1]]. Though the last probably aren't called "Love Stories" much especially per WP:DIFFCAPS but overall I don't see a clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Ignoring the irrelevant uses of “Romance”, Crouch, Swale’s page view numbers indicate the film meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria—much more likely than any other single topic (87 is over twice as likely as 23; if rain is more than twice as likely on Saturday than on Friday, it’s much more likely), and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. —В²C ☎ 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think while most of the views and long-term significance for the "Romance" meanings can be discounted they still have enough views and long-term significance as they combined get over 200x the views so even they used "Love Stories" only 0.3% of the time the film would not be primary by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting people might search with “love stories” when they’re looking for something called “Romance”? Without evidence of it, I don’t think we can account for it at all. That’s like assuming someone looking for a book called “Transportation” might search with “cars” or “trains”. I think that would be an unprecedented consideration. — В²C ☎ 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Love Stories gets an average of 4 clicks per day. That's not a very convincing WP:PT1 argument. 162 etc. (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Except PT1 is not defined in terms of absolute daily view numbers, but on view numbers relative to the view numbers for the other uses for the name in question . —В²C ☎ 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Google, Images and Books doesn't appear to show the film is primary with more of the generic meaning (though Google isn't case sensitive). Yes I think the generic meanings are unlikely. Even if only 50 of the 20,058 people used "Love Stories" to access the generic meaning the film wouldn't be primary also it could also be argued the generic meaning are likely to have more long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  We have as much obligation to account for people searching with Love Stories to find Romance as we have to account for people searching with Scary Stories to find Horror: None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. —В²C ☎ 23:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Love Story dabpage itself has 4x the pageviews. The film is not the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you think page views for Love Story are relevant to determining PT of Love Stories? All that’s relevant are page views for uses of “Love Stories”. — В²C ☎ 10:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Other articles titled "Love Stories" are dabbed at Love Story. There is no Love Stories (disambiguation) page. 162 etc. (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Appears to be the primary topic. It's hard to accidentally type "Love Stories" when you are looking for "Love Story". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support Pluralization can sometimes be distinctive. I don't think it is here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose since "Love Stories" is uncommon enough compared to "Love Story" (judging from the disambiguation page Love Story) that the pluralization is unique. Even if there is an off-chance someone just wanted to search for the term "love stories" in general, a hatnote will send them on their way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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.