Talk:Moana

Primary topic

@Mark Miller: Copied from my talk page. Sandstein 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moana is a nearly two thousand year old name from Hawaii and Hawaiian legend leading to nearly all of the kings of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is indeed the primary subject. Is there a manner to demonstrate what is the primary topic? If not, cool. But the title could be a little more precise I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is described at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Why do you think the name meets these criteria? Sandstein 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Hope your holiday season is going well. Thank you for engaging me here.

According to the guideline there is no single criteria for a primary topic, however it does state that if a topic has more educational value than others it may be primary. It also states that if the topic has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" it may be the primary topic. Even the first criteria suggested states; "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term".

While a film will have some influence on the topic's short term search requests, making it more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, that is a very limited in the overall history that is likely over time. Even with the release of a new Disney film, Moana as a topic is of greater EV than the other topics and has sources and history to can support that. While the word "Moana" has a meaning in many Polynesian languages for "deep ocean", Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the primary encyclopedic topic would be the topic which has the greatest amount of historic value and sources than the foreign language use. Other than blogs and reviews, films do not have the sustainability over historic use.

An option is to have Moana as the primary topic for its encyclopedic and educational value that none of the other topics have, and then create Moana (disambiguation) per: "The page at Rice is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Rice (disambiguation) to find the other uses." I believe the that following the precedence of the article Pocahontas is best for this topic. Thanks for letting me discuss it with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, which article exactly do you think is the one that has the enduring notability and educational value? Is it Moana (name)? In that case, don't agree: it's the name of a historic and now extinct royal family from a relatively minor nation, which is a very niche interest topic. The article gets around ten hits a day, which is really minimal, compared to Moana (2016 film), which gets around 2,000, and that's before the film is even released or promoted. On that basis, I don't see the royal family name to be the clear primary topic. The Disney film seems the better choice on popularity alone, but that might run afoul of WP:RECENTISM. As it is, I don't think we have a clear primary topic, and using Moana as the disambiguation page is therefore appropriate. Sandstein 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the visit counts of the "obvious" meaning of Moana for me, and another one, each received about 260 visits in the last 30 days, so have greater claim for primacy than the family name. I support leaving the disambig page in place, as it makes it much easier to detect erroneous inbound links (often by bot). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, ScottDavis, and Mark Miller: I've requested an uncontroversial technical move from Moana to Moana (disambiguation) in an effort to redirect Moana to Moana (2016 film). It is my good faith belief that this move will be uncontroversial, given the release and success of the film, and the fact that the first (insert arbitrarily large number) pages of Google all relate to the film. However, if you would like to contest the move, you may do so by visiting Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and following the instructions to object. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it failed for now. The name Moana, as a historic topic may have more weight than a rerouting to the Disney film..--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

love Moana

I really LOVE Moana. That movie, Moana was awesome. I LOVED it. I want to see it 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Talisa Keach (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Jonahpotty (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 December 2016

It was proposed in this section that Moana be renamed and moved to Moana (disambiguation).

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

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. (non-admin closure) Request withdrawn by nominator after unanimous opposition. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moana → Moana (disambiguation) – A year ago, there was no real primary topic for this page. Today, it's obvious that Moana (2016 film) has usurped the WP:COMMONNAME for this word. My intention is to:

- Move Moana → Moana (disambiguation)
- Redirect Moana → Moana (2016 film)
- Add a {{see also}} hatnote to Moana (2016) → Moana (disambiguation)
- Fix backlinks on pages:
  - Unlink from AmigaOS 4
  - Redirect Moana turbinulata → Moana (genus)
  - Redirect Moana (film) → Moana (2016 film)

I'm willing to do the legwork, but I can't make the initial page move because Moana (disambiguation) already exists and points to Moana. The move tool told me not to do a copy-paste move to preserve page history. It is my good faith belief that this move is uncontroversial. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexEng: "it's obvious": With the name "Moana" having so many other meanings, how long is the new movie likely to remain the dominant meaning? This is the first that I have heard of this movie.
- "Unlink from AmigaOS 4": I have unlinked in page AmigaOS 4 and inserted in Moana disambig page a link about the bootloader meaning.
- "Redirect Moana turbinulata → Moana (genus)": I have redirected Moana turbinulata to Moana (fungus).
- "Redirect Moana (film) → Moana (2016 film)": Done, and I have hatlinked from Moana (2016 film) to Moana (1926 film).
  - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's genuinely surprising to me. It's a pretty prominent Disney film. It does seem pretty obvious to me, but I'm open to hearing what you think the primary topic is. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – "it's obvious" is not a very good justification for a new primarytopic grab. And "has usurped the WP:COMMONNAME" doesn't mean anything. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: it's not a justification. It's an observation. And "has usurped the WP:COMMONNAME" pretty clearly means that "Moana" (the word) is the common name for Moana (the 2016 Disney movie); in other words, through its notability and use in common parlance, it has become the primary topic associated with the word. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing why, because there's pretty significant evidence to support this position.

A google search for "moana" "2016" yields 38 million hits.
- "moana" "movie" yields 25 million.
- Meanwhile, "moana" -disney -movie -film yields 29 million hits.
- So by one measure, the 2016 film has more hits than all other usages combined. Tested using modified search string.
The 2016 film has 319 wikilinks from article space alone, despite the fact that the article was only created two years ago
- All other entries combined (excluding Moana radio and Moana wrestling, since they link to specific lines on a page for a broader topic, and excluding Moana soundtrack since it's associated with the 2016 film) total up to 368 wikilinks. 352 if you remove duplicates.
- Closest runner up is Moaña with 86 article space wikilinks, which is 27% of the 2016 film.
First two pages of "Moana" on Google Books are all related to the 2016 film.
Google News search of "Moana" covers only the 2016 film for at least the first 5 pages.
By number of pageviews, Moana (2016 film) blows the rest away. It's not even close. The 2016 film gets 38x as many daily pageviews as the closest runner up.

Bearing all that in mind, and the guidance on WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY (particularly the rejected criterion: historical age), I'm very curious to hear which policy-based reasons you chose to oppose the move. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But will the 2016 movie still be a dominant meaning after a year when most people who want to see the movie have seen it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose revisit in a year or two if the movie is still "most obvious". It's topical in the news at present, doesn't prove that notoriety will endure. My search of Google News for Moana gets quite a few events at Ala Moana Center on the first page, yet I doubt anyone would attempt to call that primary just because it's in the news. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose House of Moana is real Hawaiian history. This is a cartoon. And we're supposed to be an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the move to Moana (disambiguation), but believe that Moana should redirect to it. The 2016 film is not an appropriate primary topic, neither is any of the other items here. Snori (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn There is clearly no consensus to move the page. As the nominator and sole supporter, I withdraw the request per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Conflicts of interest. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:18, 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Moana (2016 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moana New Zealand needs adding at some point

Moana New Zealand, which arose as part of the New Zealand fisheries settlements, should be added in due course. Website: moana.co.nz The underpinning article needs to be written first, I guess. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]