Talk:What Men Want

What Men Want

There are two topics named What Men Want and both are films:

Page view statistics strongly suggest that the the 2019 film, this article, is primary for What Men Want so I've updated the redirect there[1] to point to here rather than to the obscure 1930 film. There is a strong argument to be made to move this article to the undisambiguated title. --В²C ☎ 21:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In repointing that to the new film, you broke almost ALL of the incoming links to What Men Want. So sloppy. I've reverted that and placed a dab page there.-- Netoholic @ 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per page views stats this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC relative to the only other use, the obscure 1930 film. The redirect was just created as a result of moving that 1930 film to its current disambiguated title per an RM that I closed at Talk:What_Men_Want_(1930_film), and then I updated the resulting redirect at What Men Want to redirect here, as noted in the section just above. We could create a 2-dab dab page at What Men Want, of course, but that means everyone searching with "What Men Want", the vast majority seeking this page, would be sent to that dab page instead. Being sent here, with a hatnote to the 1930 film, makes the majority better off, without hindering the minority (still one click from the topic they are seeking). В²C ☎ 21:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC) refiling as multi-page move В²C ☎ 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Get off the hype train, folks. The 90-year-old film has clear long-term significance, and the 2019 film is enjoying current popularity, so WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the 1930 film, as the nominator points out, has not enjoyed long-term significance, where as the 2019 film is soaring in popularity with readers looking for information as the film comes out. Moving the more recent film to the base title, and a hat note to the 1930 film is the most reader-friendly option. A 2-dab page is best for cases where both articles have similar views, but that is not the case here. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also support the DAB page proposed by B2C, although without the non-notable unlinked entries currently there at time of writing -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Netoholic has gone ahead and created a dab page at What Men Want while this discussion is in progress. I've already reverted him once they re-reverted me. So I'm updating this proposal to also rename the dab to What Men Want (disambiguation). --В²C ☎ 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 1930 film clearly does not have long term significance so, yes, we should point to the new one per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And, the disambiguation page proposed by b2c above is also appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 22:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The 1930 movie has no real significance, and it's highly likely the 2019 movie will beat it in the pageviews for at least a decade (based on the fact that all of Shankman's previous films are still decently viewed to this day). Nohomersryan (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When What Men Want was the title of the 1930 film's article last year it averaged 8 hits per day. As a dab page it is getting well over 100 hits per day recently. So way more than 90% of readers landing on the dab page want the 2019 film. As a WP:TWODABS situation, a dab page is not required, but it won't really hurt anything as long as it's not usurping the plain title. Station1 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But you have to change some inclusions of What Men Want in articles, since now they point to What Men Want, and if you make a move they will go to this movie. But you mean the 1930 movie. Quiz shows 20:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 1930 film has no significance whatsoever, whereas this film opened at #2 at the box office[2] and is a remake of a very well-known film. This is clearly the film people will be looking for in the future. Songwaters (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. In terms of usage this one is pretty hard to argue against, and I'm not sure how much "long-term significance" we can allow for such an apparently obscure film. On the other hand, I don't think there's any great need to rush into this move so soon after the last one. There would be no harm in letting the dust settle given that this film has only recently been released. PC78 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support When people think of the title, they think of the remake of What Women Want... no one thinks of that completely unrelated 90 year old movie at all. Trillfendi (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (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.

Plot

I reverted the expansion of the "Plot" section that had a "summary" of over 1,900 words. WP:PLOT requires concise plot summaries, and this was too excessive to even keep around. If anyone wants to use this write-up to write something in the range of 400 to 700 words, the diff can be found here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of bad grammar in this section. Needs to be rewritten Benevolent Prawn (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot details

The plot summary suddenly mentions a character named Brandon without giving any explanation on who he is. Later in the plot summary Brandon is mentioned again but with the explanation that he is "finally an agent" as to suggest there used to be a character description of Brandon but later it was deleted. After reading this summary as someone who never seen the movie, I believe that it could use more details to explain who these characters are, plus which actor plays which character. 2600:1009:B125:9AF3:E94E:DA7E:12DB:83B3 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]