Talk:Suits

Requested move 17 January 2018

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: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. In addition, the discussion supports restoring the redirect to Suit. Dekimasuよ! 16:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suits → Suits (disambiguation)
Suits (U.S. TV series) → Suits

The U.S. TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on article readership, by a factor of about 15. - Mr X 🖋 23:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support jamacfarlane (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE – CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not only does this get more pageviews than anything titled "Suits" but also anything titled "Suit"[1]. This is no doubt due to Meaghan Markle's engagement on 27 Nov, so might need to be revisited at some point, but should continue to be primary for the foreseeable future. Station1 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this ridiculous primarytopic grab! Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not apriori against promoting popular culture topics to primary status per WP:READERSFIRST, but only if the competing encyclopedic topics lack long-term significance. However, this amounts to "ridiculous primarytopic grab" and a bad case of WP:RECENTISM. No such user (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this or the previous argument. The TV show has aired for nearly seven years. The pageview stats alone plainly establish its primacy. The goal is to help readers find the subjects that they're looking for. I was looking for the TV series and had to click several times to find it. A less experienced user might have ended up in the Leisure suits department. Although it doesn't even apply, WP:RECENTISM is an essay for good reason. A very large number of editors don't believe it has much bearing on building an online encyclopedia..- Mr X 🖋 13:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral, having reconsidered; it makes sense that "suits" is a topic that could be considered separate from "suit". I've argued elsewhere in favor of WP:PLURALPT, The relationship between a singular and its plural is important, but not the only consideration. Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, [...] the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form. Whether the TV series rises to level of such a primary topic and whether it will pass the WP:10YT, I'm still not sure, but I grant there's a good argument to that effect. No such user (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The move can be reverted once the show ends and the pageviews drop, but for now 15+ times more people are looking for the TV show than the disambiguation page. jamacfarlane (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: @Jamacfarlane: how do you propose to distinguish between "suits" with a small s and "Suits"? A topic (suits small s) is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. ? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm looking for an article about suits that people wear, my brain will quickly realize that encyclopedias don't pluralize common nouns. As I'm typing suits in the search box, I will see the word "Suit" and the little lightbulb over my head will illuminate.- Mr X 🖋 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: sorry you don't seem to have grasped the question. In a printed encyclopedia you can head an article with a small s or capital S, agreed? But Wikipedia can't do that, so we don't. Repeat we can't do that. It is technically impossible to start a title or a redirect with a small s. So consider http://www.talkenglish.com/vocabulary/top-1500-nouns.aspx running through the first hundred, seems none of these 1500 nouns in the plural redirects to an album, a novel, a film, a TV series, because it is technically impossible to start a title or a redirect with a small s. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I really don't understand the relevance of your question. I don't propose trying to distinguish between a Suits and suits at all, so the dilemma about creating a redirect does't apply. Whether I type suit or Suit into the search box, the third entry is Suit (clothing). I don;t care what we do with 1500 other nouns. That's an Appeal to tradition argument.- Mr X 🖋 23:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone explain the technical issue to MrX. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good, but you seem confused. We are not creating a redirect. The hypothetical you seem concerned with is a not a real problem. We don't redirect all plurals to the singular form of the word as explained in WP:PLURAL, and if we did, I will still object to it here because we should serving readers, not traditions.- Mr X 🖋 23:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: The convention for article titles is for the initial letter of a title to be capitalised, so there is no distinction between "Suits" and "suits". Where an article is for a common noun, it is by default given as a singular, not a plural. This is why the article for "suits people wear" is Suit_(clothing). See WP:TITLEFORMAT. Also, note that for this reason the current disambiguation page Suits does not link to the article on the clothing. jamacfarlane (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamacfarlane: sorry but that's just not true. "Suits" has always linked to "Suit" since the redirect was first created in 2005 right up until MrX came in and changed it yesterday before creating this RM. Take any noun at random dolls, doctors, clouds, rainbows, hats, cows, birds, they all redirect to the singular noun. The only 3 or 4 exceptions which are mega exceptions are listed in WP:PLURAL. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I didn't realise that MrX had recently removed the redirect, but the issue remains that the TV series gets far more page views than all of the other options combined.jamacfarlane (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We know this :) Sorry but those objecting all know that. Of course a TV show will almost always get more PT1. The same is true of Vikings the TV show gets 10x more PT1 than the original historical Vikings. Likewise Apple (capital A) gets 4x more than apple (small a). We expect this. Vikings and Apple win on PT1, but Vikings and Apple fail on PT2. This is normal with any consumer product or entertainment product. This is why we don't follow PT1 on its own. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and restore redirect to suit dab page as it was yesterday. There's no benefit at all from inserting a dab page here. The main topic for suits with a small s is suits. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PLURAL. "Suits" is indeed a separate topic from "suit", and this is the primary usage of "suits" by far. Dohn joe (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: WP:PLURAL clearly shows that subjects like parachutes and bookends go to the main use. This has been gone over frequently leaving only a tiny number of unique exceptions like Windows where the article has been around since the early days of Wikipedia. In this case Suits (U.S. TV series), Suits (South Korean TV series), and Suits (album) have never been anywhere other than where they are now - correctly and stably titled by WP:CRITERIA compliant titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other redirects does not mean we should make bad decisions here. If there is a popular TV series called Parachutes in the future, we can look at it then.- Mr X 🖋 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And readership of Suits (U.S. TV series) is about 25 times that of Windows.jamacfarlane (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

compare Suits, Game of Thrones, Donald Trump and God. Yes. This is why we don't follow PT1 without PT2. Particularly when we can't distinguish S and small s. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and merge - Suit and Suits should be at the same disambiguation, per in ictu oculi._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi's argument don't really hold water, per previous comments pointing that out.- Mr X 🖋 14:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't really review your own previous comments. I stand by WP:PT2 and by universal en.wp practice. Only mega-exceptions like Friends get to break the normal rule here. This isn't a mega exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and merge to Suit. If there was a primary topic here, I would argue that it is Suit (clothing), not a TV series named for the clothing. bd2412 T 14:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 Why would you argue than article with 1/15th the traffic is a primary topic? Also, what would be the benefit of merging this with a DAB page of a different name? - Mr X 🖋 14:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, your numbers are short term. Viewed over the last year, the TV series has gotten less than three times as many page views as the clothing, and only about 42% of the views for all topics combined. Second, even if this were not the case, long-term historical significance still carries as much weight or more in determining a primary topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suits (U.S. TV series) was moved from Suits (TV series) during that span. Including that page shows continuity in page views. [2] older ≠ wiser 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the pageview argument is moot. Unlike "Snickers", "Suits" is used in so many places that the TV series has no way of being the primary topic. Just like Cars redirect to Car and not Cars (franchise) despite its popularity._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm neutral on whether it should be moved. I only wanted to point out the anomaly in page views stats. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkonrad is exactly right about the continuity of page view stats. The subject has obvious long term significance, although I suppose it's arguable that seven years is not long term. Zxcvbnm, what we do at other unrelated articles should not determine what we do here. Our main objective should be to serve readers by enabling them to easily find the subjects they are looking for. No one has made a cogent argument about how implementing this proposal would diminish anyone's ability to find Suit (clothing) or any other article with suit or suits in the title.- Mr X 🖋 17:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated articles might have no sway in deletion discussions, but move discussions certainly do use other similar articles as examples. Here, I don't see how a suit is less important than a car in terms of whether the plural should be the primary topic. This is especially the case because someone might type "suits" looking for a list of different types of suits - which the disambiguation provides._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im pretty sure that's a strawman argument. We are not taking anything away from the suit article. The proposal is to use Suits as the title for Suits. Suits≠suit. If someone types "suits" looking for List of suits, they will realize their mistake and type "list of suits" or "suit list" into the search box next time. - Mr X 🖋 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the move does go ahead I would want to see a dab hatnote such as jamacfarlane (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course there should be a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page.- Mr X 🖋 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose remains unchanged. The kind of clothing and the classification of playing cards remain better contenders for the primary topic by historical importance. bd2412 T 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose and restore redirect to suit dab page – there is clearly no primary topic. Suits could be plural for suit, which has more long term significance then the TV show. Future royal Meghan Markle doesn't make Suits more primary topic then other "suit" or "suits" titles CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly" according to your opinion? Fine, you're entitled to it, but I would hope that people commenting here would express there arguments in terms of reader utility. This is WP:NOTAVOTE.- Mr X 🖋 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware of the WP:NOTAVOTE policy. Like I said, there is no primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Suits, the TV show, is not as historical significant as the clothing. CookieMonster755 ✉ 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE was perhaps a bit imprecise. I should have said, your argument is Ipse dixit. Using WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY as our guide, we already know that Suits (U.S. TV series) has about 15 times as much readership than competing subjects. The TV show has 484 incoming links. By comparison, the South Korean TV series has 17 incoming links; The album has 37. The first ten results in a Google seach for Suits are all about the U.S. TV series. Historical significance of "suit" is not relevant since we are talking about "Suits".- Mr X 🖋 15:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Suits with an 's' is enough disambiguation from suit (singular). Page views say it all. CookieMonster755 ✉ 19:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again what about WP:PT2? How does this TV series pass WP:PT2? Haven't seen anyone above attempt to argue a case that the TV series has longer term WP:PT2 significance than clothing and playing cards small-s. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I'm not sure what you mean by PT2. You linked to a disambiguation page.- Mr X 🖋 18:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the second half of Wikipedia:PTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I assume you mean this: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

The other two subjects sharing this term are the South Korean television show based on the U.S. television series and the album by Scottish singer Fish. Of the three, the U.S. Television series has more enduring notability based on the search engine placement, article traffic stats, and viewership of the actual program. It's greater significance is supported by the fact that a television show based on the original was created in South Korea. As far as education value, they are roughly the same on the surface, but there is an argument to be made that the article being most read by readers has the most education value.- Mr X 🖋 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "significance than clothing and playing cards small-s". You then tell us about capital-S subjects. I said "significance than clothing and playing cards small-s". Please explain how a TV series has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than suits (clothing) and suits (cards) ? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you know that the names of those articles are Suit (clothing) and Suit (cards), and that suit is a different word than suits. ~~Linking to redirects makes it look like you are trying to game the system.~~- Mr X 🖋 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, let's be careful about accusing people of gaming the system

CookieMonster755 ✉ 22:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I know that In ictu oculi is fine editor and surely not trying to game the system (thus "look[s] like"). But can we agree that using redirects instead of the actual article names is a little out of bounds?- Mr X 🖋 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and merge per other editors above. Suits of clothes, suits of cards, lawsuits, etc. --wooden superman 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and merge per above. So many different types of suits that the TV show is not a clear primary topic for "suits". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on merging. If the Suits dab page were to be merged with Suit dab page (and assuming the TV show is not moved), then Suits (U.S. TV series) would need to be listed at the top of the Suit dab page per MOS:DAB, since it will be the article that the large majority of users landing on the page will be searching for. Station1 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I don't oppose redirecting this to Suit. The TV show is clearly the primary topic for Suits, but would not be at Suit. Per WP:PLURAL it's fine to have a separate primary topic for Suit and Suits. Sometimes, however, a plural form will establish a separate primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 24 January 2018 (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:Suits (American TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]