Talk:Spectre (film)

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Spectre
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Spectre

Spectre (2015 film)

Why should this not redirect to Spectre (2015 film)? Is that not far and away the primary topic (the one that almost everyone can be reasonably assumed to be searching for if they type this title)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the title is ambiguous since Spectre (1977 film) and Specter (2005 film) (formerly at Specter (film) until about a day ago; different spelling, but not enough to distinguish) exist. However, SPECTRE (film) redirects to Spectre (2015 film), which is probably appropriate since none of the other aforementioned articles' subjects have any relation to SPECTRE or an all-caps variant of their title. Either way, this discussion probably should be taken to WP:RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But do either of these other films have anything like the level of interest and attention that the recent Bond pic has? If not, then the latter must be considered the primary topic. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I oppose Thriller (album)'s current situation, and your stance is similar to supporting its current situation. Again, the disambiguator is ambiguous, and in my opinion, your stance is a form of WP:RECENTISM. This would be better discussed at WP:RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:PDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the high level of interest in the Bond film compared with the others is due to its being recent; it's a massively more significant, expensive and watched movie. I don't see there ever being a point in history where it is not the case that the great majority of any readers typing in "Spectre (film)" are not looking for this one (and if such a point does arise, it's no problem to change the redirect at any time). There seems little point in making life more difficult for such readers. PDAB seems to confirm that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with assigning a disambiguated title like this one to a primary topic. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]