Jump to content

Talk:Howl (poem)

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

Requested move 20 January 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: 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) buidhe 01:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]



– With the existence of Howling, at the minimum, the article currently at Howl probably isn't the primary topic for "Howl" anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Support per nominator and WP:ASTONISH. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:46, 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 Apple vs Apple 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]
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.