Jump to content

Talk:The Dilemma

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

Requested move 1

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per the second discussion and considering these comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dilemma (film) → The Dilemma — The so-called primary topic was a poem that does not appear to be notable, and I have since moved it to The Dilemma (poem) and have converted the primary article into a disambiguation page for now. The upcoming film is a mainstream film with a major director and major stars, and this should be the primary topic for what exists on Wikipedia. (I checked for other films called The Dilemma, but there was only a non-notable 1914 one.) --Erik (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It makes sense. The film will probably be permanently more notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "The Dilemma" should point to the larger dab page dilemma (disambiguation), and I have done that, since with this requested move, the disambiguation would need to have been migrated anyways. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the IP 64.229.103.44. Dilemma is a common word, and per dilemma (disambiguation) the title "the dikemma" coukd refer to many things, not just the film or the poem. The Dilemma now redirects to the dab page, and that's how it should stay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The disambiguation pages mentions several different pages, but other than the (non-notable) poem page (which looks like it might get deleted anyway), none of the items on the disambiguation page have any claim to "The Dilemma" as a title. They all are titles that involve the word "dilemma" in various different phrases, but none with this exact phrase. As such, this is the only page with a claim to the name "The Dilemma". This makes it unique and not in need of a parenthetical. As an example of a similar situation, check this disambiguation page: The Desperate Hours. Notice that the play, novel, and film all with the titles The Desperate Hours have parenthetical indicators in their page names, but the 1990 film called Desperate Hours does not, since the simple absence of the word "the" made it a distinct title. 142 and 99 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already removed the template requesting the move. I thought the editors who opposed had a good point. WP:DISAMBIG says, "A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include... Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article (i.e., "a", "an", or "the" in English). For example, Cure (disambiguation) also contains instances of The Cure." Assuming that The Dilemma redirects to dilemma (disambiguation), the (film) disambiguation is thus appropriate. If you want to reopen discussion to make the move, feel free to do so. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care enough about the name of the article to pursue this further, but I would point out that the example you give actually supports the original move proposal. While the word "cure" is is used in many page names, there is a page just called Cure (for "the end of a medical condition") and a page called Cure (film) for a 1997 film and nine different pages called "The Cure" followed by some parenthetical, but there also is a page called just The Cure for the band. It is not called The Cure (band). In the end it does not matter much to me, but I'd still support the move. 142 and 99 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

References to use

[edit]

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The oppose comments from the first discussion were consider as a part of this discussion. The first discussion was never correctly opened, so opening this discussion does not present a problem and the comments from both were considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Dilemma (film) → The Dilemma — I requested a move earlier than retracted my request since I thought redirecting The Dilemma to dilemma (disambiguation page) was enough. However, after my retraction, The Dilemma (poem) was deleted for lack of notability, and 142 and 99 (talk · contribs) made a good point about the example of cure and The Cure. While the disambiguation guidelines recommend combining sets of topics when the difference is an article (in this case, "the"), we only have one example with "The" here, the film. Like the band is the predominant topic at The Cure, this film should be the predominant topic at The Dilemma. There are no other topics on Wikipedia titled "The Dilemma", and any critical topic would have been created by now. It's safe to say that people typing "The Dilemma" will be looking for the film, especially in the next two months and later again with the DVD release. So I recommend moving the film article to The Dilemma and providing a hatnote to dilemma. --Erik (talk | contribs) 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close the old discussion was never closed. And people there have said that it is more appropriate to redirect it to the disambiguation page, because of other "Dilemma" topics that may also take articles ("the"). The old discussion should be processed first appropriately. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISION. There is now nothing else on WP that is or could be titled The Dilemma, so there's no conflict with any other article title. (It's worth noting that the previous article about the poem was at the The Dilemma with no problem.) This is a very popular article (80,000+ hits Jan 1-12) and most people taking the trouble to search for or link to "The Dilemma" (2 words and caps) undoubtedly are looking for this article. Station1 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The disambiguation is now redundant and superfluous (and within ugly parenthesis). walk victor falk talk 23:20, 17 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Meeting with GM!?

[edit]

THey met with Chrysler, not with GM. It's made apparent in the film, plus GM does not own Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep.Braniff747SP (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 needed?

[edit]

For the moment, this is not an official wp:RM requested move. I see the above two previous requested move discussions. It seems there are multiple works of art or literature etc. (films, a poem, perhaps more) named "The Dilemma", and that a disambiguation page is needed/appropriate, and is different than a disambiguation page on Dilemma or Dilemma (disambiguation). This relates to The Dilemma (film), currently a disambiguation page covering two films. I don't know if the recent film of this name should be considered PRIMARYUSAGE or not; tend to think not as I tend to think the film is not very big and it is just prominent in Google because of being recent. To comply perfectly with all disambiguation page guidelines, probably an article about the other film of this name needs to be created (or description added to some article or another), else disambiguation-focused editors will keep arriving and seeking to delete the entry or redirect the disambiguation page. And after creating one or more new articles on Wikipedia-notable works named "The Dilemma", then maybe a multiple page move is needed, to move the recent film article to an appropriate name and to make "The Dilemma" a disambiguation page. What needs to be done? Please do discuss, here. --doncram 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the earlier film doesn't have an article, and as Orlady points out elsewhere, there are no references to the earlier film on WP, and there doesn't appear to be any plot connection between the earlier and later films, I think we can leave The Dilemma (film) as a redirect to the 2011 movie.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Orlady heavy-handedly intervened to erase the disambiguation page, by redirecting it to "The Dilemma". Hardly necessary given this discussion is open, IMO. Anyhow, searching at www.imdb.com, besides the 2011 film "The Dilemma" there appear to be no less than 19 separate films or TV series titled "Dilemma", during 1940 to 2011. I haven't yet found information about the 1914 film "The Dilemma". I didn't create the original disambiguation page including it. Does anyone else have information about it? --doncram 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I see the 1914 movie is briefly covered at IMDB page on the movie here. I see that Orlady's comment elsewhere suggests that the redirecting was consistent with the last move discussion of January. I was not aware of that being the case. The page was apparently recreated after January. I had only seen the March changes at the page, including a change by Station1 to redirect the page, I think without reference to the move discussion.
I did eventually find my way to this page, and had noted but not fully absorbed the previous discussions here. Anyhow, the arguments expressed so far seem to be complaints that there is not a page about the 1914 movie or other films, which perhaps could better be addressed by creating an article for it, or to be complaining about obscure/bureaucratic disambiguation page rules not being fully met.
Specifically, Station1's stated-to-me reasoning for redirecting focused on imperfect compliance of the dab page with MOS:DABRL, which could better be remedied a different way. The offending line, in Station1's view, was:
It was imperfect by MOS:DABRL because neither of the supporting bluelinks included a link to The Dilemma (1914 film) (currently a redlink). I am just editing George Morgan (screenwriter) to remedy that. --doncram 21:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a. You misconstrue and/or misstate my reasons for restoring the redirect. Please don't do that. b. The first edit summary at The Dilemma (film) clearly states "moved The Dilemma (film) to The Dilemma: Page moved per WP:RM discussion". c. Why is the 1914 film notable enough for an article? Station1 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not misconstrue anything. Please note i was in fact spot-checking some of your edits because, as discussed elsewhere, I judged you were making incorrect edits on the point of MOS:DABRL. Specifically, I was responding to your edit in March with edit label "(rv to redirect - there are incoming links)". You responded to me in this edit where your first reason was about MOS:DABRL, and you did not mention any previous move or wp:RM discussion. I had in fact not seen the previous move discussion that was on this page, instead, back in January. The page created at "The Dilemma (film)" as this version seemed reasonable to me, and your reasoning towards redirecting it to somewhere else seemed (and seems) wrong.
Anyhow, i have "fixed" both George Morgan and William Russell articles to refer to the 1914, so the mention of the 1914 film in the dab page would now meet MOS:DABRL rules. Which is what I think Station1 should have done. And, I went ahead and started the article on the 1914 film, and put a hatnote at the top of the article on the 2011 film. It does seem possible that the 2011 film should get PRIMARYUSAGE. So, maybe we are done here? --doncram 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem was that there were many broken incoming links, as stated in my first edit summary and my first message to you. It was only after your second reversion, after I explained that a "dab page is not needed for only one article", that I sent my second message, to which you link above. Station1 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you did indeed first make this edit at my Talk page with edit summary "(→The Dilemma: new section)" asserting "If you're going to turn The Dilemma (film) into a dab page, you should really at least fix all the incoming wikilinks so they point to the right article." I didn't quote that because it doesn't explain at all why you would convert a disambiguation page to a redirect. If the disambiguation page is valid, it is valid, it does not matter one iota that some mainspace pages link to it. Sure, the mainspace pages should not link to disambiguation pages, and there are systems which catch and fix those dablinks. What you said then and here doesn't make any sense at all towards supporting removal of the disambiguation page. "The main problem" of incoming links pointing to a valid dab page, is not to be fixed by removing the dab page. So what you said throughout the discussion such as it was, all seems wrong. Again, you gave no indication that there had been a requested move about this. And, there was perhaps new information since the requested move, that an IP editor had seen fit to create a sensible-looking disambiguation page (with an entry that you deemed faulty, but could easily be fixed). It seems mean to the non-logged-in editor, perhaps a new editor, to remove their contribution with no comprehensible explanation. --doncram 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere (see User talk:Orlady#double redirects fixed by bot, and new AFD) Doncram informed me that he thinks it unnecessary to fix the double redirects created by page moves; he also apparently thinks it is not necessary to update the links that are messed up when a redirect is converted to a disambiguation page. These misconceptions of his probably help to explain his rude behavior with respect to The Dilemma (film). --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion that Doncram chose to remove from User talk:Doncram#The Dilemma

[edit]

For the record, here is some content that Doncram chose to remove from his talk page:

I know nothing about this movie and I haven't been following either Doncram's or Station1's contributions, but I do have this talk page on my watchlist, so I looked into the situation with The Dilemma (film). I restored that page as a redirect, per the result of the last Requested move discussion. It is unlikely that anyone is going be typing "The Dilemma (film)" into the Wikipedia search box. Rather, the page The Dilemma (film) exists primarily as a destination for the links in several other Wikipedia articles. Converting that redirect to a disambiguation page without editing the incoming links was, at the very least, disrespectful to other contributors and users. Moreover, since there is no other information on Wikipedia about the long-ago short silent film, no useful disambiguation purpose was served by converting the page to a disambiguation page, and it is abundantly clear that the 2011 movie is the primary topic not only for "The Dilemma," but also for the title "The Dilemma (film)." I hope that the disambiguation page will not be created again, as I don't want Doncram to have to be reprimanded or blocked for edit warring or other forms of disruption. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, no need to be threatening. And, given that i just opened a discussion about it, your intervening to redirect the page and to comment here in this way, instead of just commenting in the discussion, seems rude. I comment further at the discussion. Please discuss the topic there. No further rude comments here needed, thanks. --doncram 21:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that someone was being pointy in opening this discussion, and is continuing that effort by attempting to pursue the matter -- and by expunging my comments from his talk page. Just saying. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dilemma&oldid=1206972986"