Jump to content

Talk:Oh Baby (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested moves

[edit]
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: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see any argument for why this topic is not primary. Page views? Usage in RS? Anything? I glanced at the dab page and my impression is that this is the only significant use of the term. So unless I missed something, I think I have to oppose. --B2C 06:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC) changed !vote - see below. --B2C 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Born2cycle, an admission of having not looked at anything and opposing simply because a Google search box isn't provided may be seen as WP:POINTY. However since you request, Oh Baby + Tracy Calloway = zero vs Oh Baby + Bix Beiderbecke gets over 100 suggests that it will not be too difficult for editors who take even the most cursory look at Google Books on this to see that the TV series is not more common than all the other uses combined. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, if you have an argument for why there is no primary topic, present it. Why make everyone who comes to the RM guess what your basis is and start from scratch?

So, your argument is based on usage in books? I'm not sure that's appropriate since all the uses are in the entertainment area. Isn't that going to be biased toward favoring older topics covered in archived books that few (if anyone) is searching today? Let's see.

Hmm. So Oh Baby (Bix Beiderbecke song) is a brand new 2-sentence stub article, one that nobody found need to create until May 4, 2014. I, for one, am not persuaded that many (if anyone) will be served by being sent to the dab page instead of to the article about the TV series that they are likely to be seeking, as about 20 people appear to be doing every day, on average. --B2C 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you know that's because we have a demographic bias to WP:RECENT. The comedy about a career woman considering artificial insemination ran from 1998 to 2000, that is 14 years ago - enough to pick up 1 or 2 printed sources references if it was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for long term notability, outweighing all other Oh Baby topics. Yet the Bix Beiderbecke jazz standard gets 20 hits in the same recent 14 year period. The same 14 years also sees multiple print references to the Little Walter song, Bill Cosby comedy album and so on... Let's let other editors decide. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google.fr? France? Seriously? Sure, let others decide, but don't be coy. Disclose your role in creating new articles recently and updating the dab page accordingly, not to mention relying on results from a non-English Google search. --B2C 23:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle, I am not ashamed of being an editor who contributes to the content of the encyclopedia. These search results are from America: and still show the Bix Beiderbecke jazz standard gets the same 20 hits in the same recent 14 year period, Little Walter's R&B rock standard gets over 50, compared to only 4 or 5 for the TV show. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're still being coy. hl=fr... your web interface language is French? Are you French? Why is this like pulling teeth? Why don't you just make your case? --B2C 00:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As a hockey fan, I think the obvious PRIMARYTOPIC for "Oh Baby" would be an article devoted to discussing John "JD" Davidson's [phrase] as a broadcaster. OK seriously... the question here isn't whether something else is the PRIMARYTOPIC... but whether the TV Show should be. I don't think a TV Show that aired on a little watched niche market cable network is any more the PRIMARYTOPIC for the title than the song by the "Queen of Soul"... or the one by Jazz great Bix Beiderbecke... or any of the other article topics listed at the dab page. I will also note that one prime candidate for the PRIMARYTOPIC seems to be missing... this nationally sold line of pregnancy apparel. I am surprised there isn't an article on it... yet. THAT gets far more hits on google than any of the contenders. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, well spotted. A link to the existing article content: The company also distributes its Oh Baby by Motherhood collection through a licensed arrangement at over 1,100 Kohl's stores throughout the United States and on Kohls.com. has been added under Brands and companies. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Blueboar's argument. Other uses of "Oh Baby", including the pregnancy apparel, mean the 14 year old TV show is not the primary topic. A cogent argument in the nom would have been appreciated. --B2C 04:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Blueboar's argument: "OK seriously... the question here isn't whether something else is the PRIMARYTOPIC... but whether the TV Show should be." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That's why I originally said, "I don't see any argument for why this topic is not primary". I did not say, "I don't see any argument for why some other topic is primary".

But Blueboar provides, you know, an argument supporting the assertion that there is no primary topic, instead of simply declaring "no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists". I'm stunned that someone like you, with all your RM experience, would present this lame proposal with no argument whatsoever. --B2C 06:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant point is "OK seriously..." I could not anticipate that one editor would choose to force so many bytes on something immediately obvious, particularly more bytes after supporting the RM when the matter is effectively closed. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make here is much bigger than this RM. It's that each RM proposal should include an argument supporting the proposal; it should not simply make an unsubstantiated claim. --B2C 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
B2C... I think "there is no primary topic" actually is a valid rational for a move request. "There is no primary topic" is (or should be) the default mode in disambiguation. You noted that you saw "no argument for why this topic is not primary". I think that approaches the issue from the wrong side... it unfairly asked In ictu to "prove the negative". I think that in order to say that one topic is primary, we need some evidence of the positive... that the topic under consideration actually is significantly more notable/recognizable than any of the other choices. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may.... I believe that B2C's issue is not with the rationale itself, but with the fact that the rationale did not come with any evidence or argument, as called for at WP:RM: "Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the policy on disambiguation and primary topic." Note that it says use evidence and make reference to policy. Otherwise, I could go to Talk:Paris, propose an RM and say "There is no primary topic." In that case, the rationale would be the same as it was here. But without evidence or argument, there's no way to assess the validity of the rationale. Dohn joe (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle re "The point I'm trying to make here is much bigger than this RM" - my understanding of WP:POINTY is that the guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is against making such bigger points using examples, such here as Oh Baby, which are disrupting a move everyone, including yourself, supports to illustrate a point. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dohnjoe, welcome. "I could go to Talk:Paris," - except that the problem with that example is that you couldn't, since there are distinct differences in a plausible universal first topic between "Oh Baby" and "Paris". Anyway, back to this article Talk page, and the purpose of this article Talk page, now you are here on this article Talk page contributing to the bytes of this requested move, what is your !vote on the proposed move? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn joe, exactly. Thank you.

Blueboar, I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I'm asking for evidence supporting whatever claim is being made in support of whatever proposal is being made. Here, In ictu oculi is proposing that this title be disambiguated on the grounds that there is no primary topic, implying that this use is not the primary topic. But he, initially, provided no evidence supporting this claim. Not even an argument. I'm trying to persuade that he should have, so that next time he will.

In ictu oculi, have you even read WP:POINT? I suggest you read it, and the examples. Make sure you understand it before you accuse others of violating it. Please. Here's the nutshell: When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only. I am using direct discussion, and only direct discussion, to make this point!!! Sometimes... --В²C ☎ 01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C... "There is no PRIMARYTOPIC" is the default position when it comes to disambiguation, and thus does not need to be supported... it is presumed unless someone can demonstrate that a PRIMARYTOPIC actually does exist. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. When a topic has been at a title for years and somebody creates a new dab page we don't automatically assume all these topics on it that nobody even bothered to add until now automatically means we assume the existing use is not primary. The other thing is if the nom doesn't do the homework and show the results, everybody has to do it from scratch instead of just verifying what the nom did. At best it's a very lazy nom. --В²C ☎ 05:53, 7 May 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oh_Baby_(TV_series)&oldid=1216476094"