Jump to content

Talk:The Warriors (film)

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

Pop culture culling

[edit]

We cannot just drop any instance of a line being used that was in the Warriors, because that would be us - as editors - doing so, and we are not citable. For an instance to be added, it has to have a source that explicitly speaks to the use of material from The Warriors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2022

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 08:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


– Prior to the recent move discussion I initiated on The Exorcist, which ended with the "(film)" being dropped from the title as the 1973 movie is clearly the primary topic, I looked around for support to other filmed adaptations from 40-50 years ago that have clearly displaced the novels on which they were based. From around 1979-1980, I saw that Being There and Ordinary People recognize in their titling that the film is the PRIMARYTOPIC. But, astoundingly, this one does not, despite Yurick's novel having been so eclipsed by the film that there are a great deal of people today who aren't even aware there was ever a book 14 years earlier.

Our own pageviews show that the film article gets 12 times as many views on an average day as the novel article. And I won't even get into the Jakes novel or the video game. None of the other title possibilities really get involved, as they have built-in disambiguation. The film is clearly the primary topic here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn and Zzyzx11: I direct your attention to the Google search results, which tend to reflect what people click on in search results there for a particular term. The IMdB article on the movie is first, our article is second. Bing results, too, greatly prefer the movie, and the top non-ad results on DuckDuckGo are also for the movie (it also puts up a box for the movie, with our article linked from the box at the side. Anyone looking for the article on the NBA team (which is linked from the dab page, BTW) searches on the team's full name.

"There should be no primary topic" is not how we begin this inquiry; in fact, that question has no place in this discussion. It's "Is there a primary topic?" And there is ... the movie. No one above the age of, say, 6, would be likely to search for information on the team here by typing "The Warriors" into the search field. The fact that the article on the team gets more views cannot tell us much about whether those viewing it came from The Warriors or some other link. It's not like Hoyas, which takes you straight to the page about Georgetown's athletic teams because there's no other possible meaning for that term.

Indeed, persisting in maintaining the disambiguation page as the landing page for this makes about as much as sense as having "Bear" be a disambiguation page since people might come looking for information on the California Golden Bears, or better still the Chicago Bears. I would note that we have an even more extensive disambiguation page that "Warriors" leads you to from Warrior", with, indeed, just about every link on "The Warriors" included ... maybe we have one more dab page than we need. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: To the argument that there are "far too many" other topics, I say, "Your point?" PRIMARYTOPIC says nothing about the amount of other possible topics being a subject of consideration. Counting through the other "The Warriors" with dab terms, I find about six ... we have granted primary topic status to articles with far more, uh, competitors.

Note that both The Godfather and Deliverance offer many other possibilities, as they're both very common words—yet clicking those links will take you right to the articles on the movies with those names. The Omen also takes you to the 1976 movie (and that's an even more common term with a lot more other article titles than "The Warriors". I do not see the logic in not applying the same principle here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I view the Google Search results, yes the film is the first one that pops up, but then after that I see a fair mixture of both for the film and the team, not an overwhelming result for one or the other. It is the same with the Bing results and the the DuckDuckGo ones. Thus under my interpretation under WP:GOOGLETEST, I cannot agree with you. Also, WP:OSE, just because those other pages are the current consensus does not necessarily mean they apply there. Bear is a specific level 4 vital article subject, so it gets the primary topic as well as the redirect from plural, Bears, based on long-term significance. That is not the case here. Based only on the context of the phrase "the Warriors" and how it is used, I would prefer to error here on the side of having no primary topic. And in any case, I have held the belief that the article on the original source novel like The Warriors (Yurick novel) should have priority as the primary topic in terms of long term significance over the film adaption article even if the latter gets more page views and search engine results. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We just rejected, again, that latter view in the case of The Exorcist, and we have done this many times before. See Fight Club, as well ... I think there was a move discussion there that rejected thoroughly the idea that the novel article should be the primary topic because "it came first".

GOOGLETEST, AFAICT, gives us no guidance on how to use it for this purpose. But if search engines have adapted to putting information about a particular response to a query in a sidebar, as you have conceded all three of them do, that should settle any discussion about which links people are overwhelmingly likely to click on out of the options presented.

I don't put any stock in the mix of team and movie results, and neither should you ... in fact I find it far more telling that a movie made over 40 years ago does that well compared to a pro basketball team that has played a season every year since then, some of them pretty good ones. Also consider that there are a lot more websites that have some focus on the basketball team, but not many devoted to the movie, and yet the movie reaches the top of the results. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I utterly fail to see how anyone could credibly advance the argument that the fact that the article on the basketball team gets more hits by itself means it should be the primary topic for the term "The Warriors". We would need, as I proposed below, to see what amount of those hits come from the current dab page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are other things like the video game and novel etc even if we significantly discount Golden State Warriors. While Bears may go to the animal someone typing The Bears could be looking for the team, same here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Deliverance" is also a fairly generic term, with religious connotations, a source novel and plenty of other uses, yet no one seems to have any problem with the film article as the primary topic.

So the pro basketball team is called "the Warriors"? I never would've guessed ... I mean, it's only their name, and the name of so many other sports teams. What makes them The Warriors? The Boston-area NFL team is surely, to its fans and many others, The Patriots, but Patriots nevertheless does not take you to New England Patriots (There are movies called The Patriots, you may doubtless argue in response, but I would remind you before you make that argument that none of them have been popular cult movies for four decades).

And, again, I think that only people with heads full of sand actually try to get to that article on the basketball team by searching on "The Warriors" ... reasonable people would type in "Golden State" first. If you can show me, somehow, that a substantial majority of the clicks from the current dab page are on the basketball team article (which, if it is so overwhelmingly the choice of readers, ought to be the topmost link on it), then I will consider you (or anyone else here) as having advanced a serious argument in favor of that position. But only then. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far you are literally the only person who thinks this way, making your responses look like WP:BLUDGEON. See also WP:NWFCTM. The movie may be "obviously" the primary topic for you, but not for others. I personally don't think this is a similar situation as "Deliverance" due to the numerous sports teams nicknamed "Warriors". It's not a similar situation as "Patriot" either, since people naturally think of the Revolutionary War fighters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: That's a very American-centric argument that should not be given much, if any, weight in this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously advise you to WP:AGF as you are acting rather hostile to most people in the discussion. Anyway, I am not sure what you are attempting to prove as The Patriots is in the same exact situation as The Warriors is in right now with no primary topic at that location, which is what people are arguing should stay that way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... sort of proves my point. Further research with WikiNav reinforces it. For the film article, it seems that the majority of traffic to it, about 55%, comes from search engines. Whereas for the basketball team, merely 34% comes from search engines. This is pretty solid evidence for giving search engine results, which we have all agreed favor the movie, the greater weight in determining if the film is the primary topic. This holds even if we add the "other-empty" (external traffic with an empty referrer) ... the film is still on top by about 74% to 63%.

Yes, it is true that the basketball team article gets a lot more internal traffic, but that is easily explained as a factor by the much greater amount of links to it. And I will go into more detail below as to why that, and the traffic resulting from it, is a dubious and misleading metric within the context of this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of pageviews per se does not prove the basketball team is what enough people think of when they hear or read the phrase "The Warriors" to dismiss the notion of the film as the primary topic.

[edit]

This is basically an example of the top-level statistical fallacy. We must take into account the difference between the two articles' subjects and whether they can honestly be compared with each other in how they generate traffic and linkage throughout the encyclopedia.

The film article concerns a work made over 40 years ago, a cult film of enduring and continuing notability based on a novel over 50 years old that fewer and fewer viewers discovering the film for the first time are even aware exists unless they pay close attention to the credits. There have been no sequels or remakes since it came out. There have been two video game adaptations, but neither has set that medium on fire, to put it mildly. We have long had articles on its writer-director and cast that link to this film.

In short, it is likely that the 481 links to this page from elsewhere in Wikipedia are probably about 98% of the links this article is likely to ever have.

The basketball team article, on the other hand, concerns a team that has played in the NBA and its predecessor the BAA constantly for over 75 years and reasonably can be expected to continue doing so for the foreseeable future. Each of those years has generated an article on the team's season for that year, as well as a list of those season articles. The team article will necessarily be linked as well from the corresponding article on each NBA season, and likely many articles on other team's seasons. From the article on each player, each coach, each owner and everyone notable associated with the team in some way, there will be a link. Each season rosters will change and at least some people not previously associated with the team will be, requiring a link from their article. When players on other teams have notable incidents in their careers in games against the Warriors, that will require a link from their articles.

And so on. There are currently 4,217 links to the main Golden State Warriors article. Naturally that structurally inevitable disparity, almost a 9-to-1 ratio is going to drive a lot more traffic. So it's misleading to say that the greater amount of pageviews settles the question. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

All links are not alike. Some reflect genuine encyclopedic purpose more than others. It's much more likely that a curious reader clicks in another article than from a vandalism warning reflecting the single edit made by that IP in over 20 years of Wikipedia's existence.

Links from user pages also generally should not be counted, as they are often statements of fandom (there is a userbox for the film used on 24 pages, and of course one for the basketball team on 55 pages. User pages, like user talk pages, are much more widely read by Wikipedians than outsiders, so they don't really reflect the curiosity the encyclopedia is meant to serve.

If we take away user page links from the film article, we are down to 385 links. Doing the same with the basketball team takes us down to 3,912. Eliminating user talk pages reduces further to 309 and 3,691.[[4],[5]

Category pages, too, aren't big players in the encyclopedia game. I don't think many non-editing viewers click links to these articles from that space. There are no links to the film article from categories, but 14 to the team article, so we're down to 3,677. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2022 (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.

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain" – Friedrich Schiller Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

[edit]

I know this is a well known movie but how did an entire plot summary get posted and it is completely lacking and references. Frenchfriesaredelicious (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus's robe- where is it now?

[edit]

Anyone know? 66.205.217.67 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Warriors_(film)&oldid=1211746281"