This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
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: Moved. This consensus is not just numerical, but also the arguments made. As pointed out by some supporters of the move, pageviews is only one measure of the primary topic and not necessarily the decisive one. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe01:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I very much appreciate the new howling article, the poem is certainly still primarytopic by pageviews - with 15 times the views as the new article. And as an iconic 20th-century work of literature, it has plenty of long-term significance as well. And as "howl" and "howling" are different forms, there's no reason they can't both establish separate primarytopics under WP:AT. Dohn joe (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, after Howling was created, I created Howl (sound) as a redirect to target it to keep it in line with the title precedence set in Bark (sound). I mean, I get it, Howling is an article that has not been around for two weeks yet, making it difficult to do an accurate page view comparison, but its topic could also be called "howl" without the "-ing". In addition, I would go as far as to believe the title of the poem was based on the name of the sound, which could further illustrate the topics having relatively similar claims to "long-term significance". Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true about the sound article potentially being called "howl", but the current way gives us two articles with WP:NATURAL disambiguation and doesn't disrupt the way this article has been for a long time. And of course the poem is named after the sound, but being named after something is not a strong consideration in article titling. WP:DPT: "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. Boston, Massachusetts is the primary topic for Boston, not the English town from which it took its name." Dohn joe (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dohn joe: The poem gets 8,915 views but the 2015 film gets 3,999 and the 2010 film gets 1,733 so it doesn't seem like the "much more likely than any other single topic" is satisfied though the "more likely than all the other topics combined" is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the poem is famous and influential. The new Howling article is nice, but it is not automatically the primary topic. "WP:Astonish" is, as usual, is an irrelevant criterion here - the poem is called "Howl" so there's nothing astonishing whatsoever about it being at an article called "Howl", just as nobody complained in the past 20 years presumably. SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and howling is not a WP:DICDEF, it is a broad concept article. It's hard to argue that the poem title wasn't based off the thing animals do, so it has long-term significance. As for "no one complained", it tends to be that existing articles in a certain location discourage people from trying to make a new one, so the fact that there was an article somewhere already doesn't really prove anything about whether it should be there. ZXCVBNM (TALK)00:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that as in "I think the Howling article should be deleted" (it's a good article to have). I'm saying that as in an encyclopedia and a dictionary are different. The "base" definition needs to show it's the primary topic, it doesn't get it by default, and right now there's a 15:1 edge in pageviews for the poem. Admittedly, this is likely skewed because the Howling article is very recent, but that just further suggests that we should, at the very least, wait 6 months and see. SnowFire (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I for one agree with this assessment. The poem appears to be the primary topic for this name; we shouldn't award "howling" primary topic status when it hasn't been proven to be such. An extended hatnote would probably solve this issue. Sean Stephens (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose due to view counts and primary, maybe check the views in a few months but they seem steady. The poem is extremely significant for both an era and the evolution of literature. The poem continues to get 400 plus views a day while 'Howling' seems to be settling in at 40-45, so the poem seems to have the best case for primary. Don't know why some editors are astonished when given the amount and comparison of the view counts WP:ASTONISH would actually tip the other way. This seems an easy one and am almost astonished that it wasn't a speedy keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because pageviews are not the only criterion for primary topic. Longterm significance also exists. A comparison to this I can offer is ApplevsApple Inc. - the company is about 5x more popular in pageviews but is not primary because duh. If Wikipedia prioritized things solely based on popularity it would ignore otherwise encyclopedic information. ZXCVBNM (TALK)21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and I'd argue that the poem is of such cultural and era-defining impact that it has that longterm significance, especially when the dictionary aspect is factored in. I really like the howling page, and love the howl of wolves which I've heard often, and would like to see that page improve from a still respectable 45 or so page views a day. Yet this page covers a major literary and cultural topic, easily arguable to still hold primary status. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. It seems clear that the primary topic by long-term significance is Howling, while the page views leader is the poem. Therefore the disambiguation page should reside at the base name, with neither topic being declared primary. — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 28 January 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.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
