Talk:What Men Want

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2600:1009:B125:9AF3:E94E:DA7E:12DB:83B3 in topic Plot details

What Men Want

edit

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

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 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

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

edit

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

edit

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