This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 14 July 2020. The result of the move review was Reopen and relist RM.
How about we Disambiguate (create a disambiguation page) and let readers decide where they want to go? Thoughts on creating a dab page at the basename? When in doubt, it's often the safest bet. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that someone would be seeking the generic meaning here, note for example that Murder in England doesn't exist. While we maybe should have redirects for these terms I'm not sure that they're primary if something named as such is here. I agree with Paintspot, disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see where the nom is coming from, but there is not currently any topic in Wikipedia on murder in Texas (or murder in most locales). Just because something sounds generic doesn't mean it's not the primary (or only) encyclopedic topic. That's the case here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dohn joe, your statements are wrong in both fact and policy.
there is coverage of the topic of "murder in Texas", in the article Crime in Texas.
The fact that existing coverage of murder in Texas is not in a page titled "murder in Texas" is irrelevant: see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT:
The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary
@Station1, the fact that here's no other article on WP using the title is irrelevant, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT:
The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary
This has been pointed out to you so many times at so many RMs that your continued defiance of the guideline cannot possibly be excused as ignorance or error. It is wilful disruption. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The subject of murder in Texas is clearly covered in the article, Crime in Texas, and the inability of filmmakers to come up with a non-generic title should not be read to change that. BD2412T03:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DISAMBIGUATION (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), WP:PRECISE ("titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that."), Dohn joe and Station1. If WP:Astonish was a basis to change a title, it would warrant at least a mention at WP:AT, and would require us to move countless WP articles. Think about why we disambiguate at all: because multiple article can't have the same title. We disambiguate from other uses on WP, not from hypothetical uses not covered on WP. Not to mention that page views of Crime in Texas are half of page views for this article[1]. --В²C☎17:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@В²C: Nice collection of policy links, and pretty highlighting ... but undermined by being based on two simple, glaringly false assertions:
yes, WP:PRECISE says "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" ... but the title "Murder in Texas" does not unambiguously identify a film.
B2C says We disambiguate from other uses on WP, not from hypothetical uses not covered on WP ... but the topic of murder in Texas is covered in the article Crime in Texas.
Fair enough. I’ll add the nuanced points now. That’s a misleading statement in PRECISE because it then goes on to list all the exceptions where ambiguity is the norm, starting with primary topics. So just because the film title is ambiguous even relative to topics covered by WP per your second bullet, that’s not necessarily a violation of PRECISE. Since the Crime in Texas page gets far fewer views than the film page (and the murder in Texas topic is covered not even as a section of that article, but as a mere column in a table), the film is clearly the PT here. That really should have been the thrust of my opposition from the outset. Thanks. —В²C☎15:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: see discussion with Amakuru at User talk:Amakuru#Murder in Missisippi and Talk:Venting#Requested move 20 August 2015 indeed if the film didn't exist its likely that this would be a red link suggesting no other article needs this title (as an article there or a redirect) but at the same time the search box takes you to a set of search results (see WP:COSTLY) and this is all lost when an article is created and now readers have to load this article. I wouldn't redirect to the capital punishment or felony murder rule since they're about specific types/parts of it rather than the crime in general in Ohio. While ASTONISH doesn't its self make that much reference to primary topics the guideline WP:NWFCTM does say "We certainly don't want to astonish our readers, and the topic that comes first to mind indeed often is suitable as the primary topic." so I think at minimum ASTONISH can be used as a common sense point that a topic isn't primary because its not what most people would expect. I have often used ASTONISH for example in cases such as Lewis, Barking, Piranhas and Wag. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(2)Search for "Murder in Texas" A "costly" redirect does not prevent you from looking at search results. See the example search I uploaded, to the right. Click on "containing... Murder in Texas" (highlighted in blue) and you will get these results.
There's no need for a DAB per WP:ONEOTHER if the film is primary. It does for most of our readers since the category doesn't come up in the suggestions for most readers (unless you've added categories to you're search) and most people will either click on the bold "Murder in Texas" link in the suggestions or just press "Go" without getting the search results. I didn't know about clicking "Containing" until a few months ago as someone who has been on here for over 10 years so the chances of a casual reader knowing is low. "Book" is a topic term rather than a descriptive term but it could redirect to a section of the library article if no article existed at Book. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The previous close was fine good, as I pointed out at the MRV. But given that it's reopened, I'm going to oppose this and hopefully we can put this to bed in short order. Rationale for oppose: because "Murder in Texas" isn't really a plausible redirect to Crime in Texas. I mean logically it is plausible, but it's just not likely enough that someone would type that in the search bar to make it worth the trouble of moving the film page. Just because a film or book has a common-noun-phrase as its title doesn't mean it's not the primary topic, in situations where we don't even title articles using that format anyway. We have Murder in Mesopotamia, Death in Venice, Love in Canada, Murder in Mississippi, Crime and Punishment, all of which could be redirects to other topics. But just as Murder in Colorado, Love in Sweden etc. are redlinks, so would "Murder in Texas" be if it weren't for this film. And it is therefore more than sufficient to just use a hatnote at the film. — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, serious question; do have an example of a title other than murder in Mississippi which could actually exist as an encyclopaedic subject? 4 of the others: 3 examples are article sections which no one would reasonably expect to exist (and the fourth example is faulty as Dostoyevky's novel has a capital P). What we're looking for are titles which could exist, such as gods of Egypt where a film with 140x more page views than the 1981 TV movie we are worrying about here is deferring to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (as User talk:BrownHairedGirl) to ancient Egyptian deities. Why does that redirect there? Because although the Gods film has 10x more pageviews than the historical gods this is an encyclopaedia not IMDB. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure 1981 television film article will not suffer from having (film) on it... Did not participate in previous discussion : yes ladies and gentlemen, we are debating whether a TV B-movie from 40 years ago is the long term encyclopaedic meaning of the phrase "murder in Texas" (with no capital M for film), while we recognise that Category:Murder in Texas is not about the TV movie. Whatever the legalistic dogma says, common sense says support per (1) Even if an article does not exist, murder or homicide in Texas is the primary topic. Therefore WP:Astonish. (per Bob not snob) and likewise (2) the subject of murder in Texas is clearly covered in the article, Crime in Texas, per BD2412. I'm not seeing any argument at all for saying that "(film)" will harm any reader looking for either the film or looking for real homicide in Texas). If this was a recent Hollywood movie then maybe, but a TV movie from 40 years ago? Come on. The majority of film articles have (film). Some of the points above go back to the Hurricane example. Imagine that there was no article named Hurricane except the (plane), would we have the plane at Hurricane rather than the current redirect to Tropical cyclone? (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language."
Why would anyone be shocked, surprised, or confused by any of the content of the Murder in Texas article? Does the lead sentence not clearly explain that the scope of the article is a 1981 television film?
Certainly a reader searching for this film would not be surprised to find exactly what they were searching for.
A reader landing here looking for something else, might be surprised to learn that there was a film with this title, but why would they be "shocked" or "confused" to learn that there was a film with this name?
Well, they might be confused if there were no hatnote at the top directing them to what they were looking for. "What, Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that has articles about practically everything, doesn't have an article about murders in the state of Texas yet? That's surprising."
The only way to keep them from being surprised would be to actually write an article on the topic. Why shouldn't they be "shocked and surprised" after they were redirected to a stub with crime statistics? "A few statistics on numbers of murders? Is that all you've got on the topic? I'm surprised!"
What would really shock a reader would be finding a graphic video of someone shooting someone in the back on a Dallas street. To me, that's what Wikipedia:Astonish is really about. It's a stretch to find much applicability or relevance for this MOS guideline at requested moves.
"Ensure that redirects and hatnotes that are likely to be useful are in place. If a user wants to know about the branch of a well-known international hotel chain in the French capital, they may type "Paris Hilton" into the search box. This will, of course, take them to the page associated with a well-known socialite called Paris Hilton. Luckily, though, a hatnote at the top of that article exists in order to point our user to an article which they will find more useful."
Harrias deleted page Crime in New Hampshire (Expired PROD, concern was: no encyclopaedic value apparent)
Only two sentences in Crime in Ohio talk about murder: "In 2012 there were 405,262 crimes reported in Ohio, including 478 murders. In 2014 there were 357,558 crimes reported, including 464 murders." When that content, if it stood alone, would likely be sent off for "incubation" if not deleted altogether, is creation of more specific redirects to such thin content justified?
Also List of shootings in Texas is a viable primary topic candidate. Every shooting listed there resulted in at least one death. A viable article on the "generic topic" might be created by merging the summaries of every article in Category:Murder in Texas. Hmm, I wonder how many categories there are where the article with the same title as the category is not a member of its namesake category! – wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2020 (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.
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.
Oppose The competing page does not convincingly show notability. It would need to be clear it is notable before recognizing it as a primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support back in the 2020 RM we didn't have an article on the generic meaning and it could well be argued that fact it didn't exist in all this time meant it probably shouldn't and there was little ambiguity but now we do have articles it seems sensible to move as the film at least isn't likely to be primary by usage. @BD2412: perhaps those unambiguous should be moved to the title without "law" such as Murder in Connecticut law>Murder in Connecticut as the articles could also be expanded to include statistics rather than just the law? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Normally AFAIK we include information on the law its self and statistics/general information on the topic, see Listed building which includes information on the law surrounding them as well as statistics and designations (which aren't part of the law). Including the word "law" seems clumsy and unnecessary and I'd actually move to Murder in Texas (crime) for those not primary which would negate Station1's point. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed move - I disagree that the aspect of law is the primary topic, so I would prefer a dab page there, but that's a discussion for RfD I would imagine. estar8806 (talk) ★16:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. The proposition that Murder in Texas law "does not convincingly show notability" is itself unconvincing. A state's entire discrete legal structure for addressing murders committed in that state is inevitably going to be highly notable, and frankly more so in a large and storied state. Taken against an obscure film, I would agree with User:Estar8806 that we should at least have a disambiguation page at that title. BD2412T20:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's only in the past few weeks that pageviews for this new article have come close to those for the film. With a WP:ONEOTHER situation and non-identical titles, a move isn't really necessary. But if the article is moved, Murder in Texas should become a dab page with no primary topic, especially if all the incoming wikilinks to the film aren't corrected first. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many arguments above. I too find it hard to believe that the concept of murder lacks notability, Murder in Texas law notwithstanding (meaning, even if we didn't have that article, I'd be astonished if I were taken to a movie article if I were to search "Murder in Texas") ASUKITE15:19, 12 July 2023 (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.
