Talk:Fashion Model

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

Change title to "Fashion Model (film)" please[edit]

all redirects to "fashion model" come here — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregKaye (talk • contribs) 3:08 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree to the proposed change. 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:5823:CBFF:E90E:5A1D (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovineboy2008: You made the original move / redirect from Fashion Model (film) to Fashion Model, so I thought you might comment here.
2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:5823:CBFF:E90E:5A1D, not all redirects come here. Fashion model redirects to Model (person)#Fashion modelling.
There is also Fashion Model Directory.
Do WP:COMMONNAME & WP:SURPRISE apply here? I would argue that they do, as I think most people who type in Fashion Model would hardly be looking for a 1945 film. I think a disambiguation page for Fashion Model would be the best option. Peaceray (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a disambiguation page would be a good step. In the long run, the Fashion Model disambiguation page could evolve into the main page for Fashion Model, using the content from Model (person)#Fashion modelling. 86.135.242.225 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2024[edit]

Fashion Model → Fashion Model (film) – Formalising the discussion above. I'm neutral on the matter, but WP:DIFFCAPS may be relevant. If moving, we should also decide a target future for the resulting redirect Fashion Model. Certes (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest there may be no primary topic and a DAB should be created here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in favour of the move. In addition, a disambiguation page might be useful although it would have only two entries - Fashion model (person) and Fashion Model (film). 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:FC81:ED97:43AB:7D23 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that Model (person) would be the primary topic. I haven't even looked at the article on the film and I already know that it will be about a person who is a model. BD2412 T 11:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Model (person) seems the redirect target per BD2412. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and redirect basename to Model (person). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS. This article gets only about 6 hits per day, while lower-cased fashion model, which already properly redirects to model (person), gets more than 10 times as many, indicating there's simply no problem that needs fixing. At most, this needs a hatnote for the rare reader who winds up here by mistake, which I'll add now. Station1 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, up to 10 percent of users ended up on the wrong page initially. If so, that is not a good situation and needs to be fixed by the proposed move. 81.136.28.184 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If 10% of users ended up on the wrong page, it would mean 90% of users were on the right page and moving it would put that large majority on the wrong page instead. Better the 10% click on a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, moving this page would not affect the 90% of people who already end up at fashion model. 81's point isn't that up to 10% of people who end up at Fashion Model were not looking for the film, but rather that up to 10% of people looking for fashion model ended up at the film. SilverLocust 💬 10:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I misunderstood. But if the premise of the comment is that the 6 readers a day who view this article all searched for the occupation using a capital M for some reason and wound up on this article by mistake, that seems unlikely in the extreme. Station1 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS, which is straight-up policy. There is no compelling reason why "fashion model" would be typed in title case for the common subject more than the policy's example of iron maiden and Iron Maiden, so leave it alone. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Station1 and Erik. However obscure the 1945 poverty row film is, it nevertheless remains the sole Wikipedia entry bearing this exact main title header. Users researching the lowercase-styled profession of clothes modeling will be taken to their destination directly by typing "fashion model" which is a redirect to Model (person)#Fashion modelling. Users who simply type "Model" will immediately see the hatnote atop that general entry and those who type "Fashion Model" will likewise spot the relevant hatnote atop the uppercase-styled italicized entry for the film Fashion Model. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems like an area which is very prone to overcapitalization - this is effectively a job title and we lowercase them on Wikipedia but that consensus was hard-fought so many people think they should be uppercase. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both the current situation and the proposed title are consistent with WP:DIFFCAPS, given there are hatnotes. DIFFCAPS just says that the capitalized M in Fashion Model can be sufficient disambiguation from Fashion model. But if more people searching/linking "Fashion Model" are miscapitalizing the common noun than looking for the obscure film, then DIFFCAPS doesn't call for having the film at Fashion Model rather than having a hatnote from Fashion model to Fashion Model (film). (To get "as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for".)
Second, pageview statistics for a redirect versus for an article are apples and oranges. Redirect views come only from browsing to the redirect, whereas article views include arriving from a Google search or from typing into the search bar and then clicking one of the search suggestions. Model (person) had 1745 daily views, of which 762 were via redirects and 66 of those were via Fashion model. See Redirect Views and Pageviews Analysis (with Model (person) also shown). If you Google fashion model and click on the first link, Model (person), that will not be recorded as a page view for Fashion model. In contrast, the pageviews for Fashion Model include anyone searching on Google for something like fashion model movie, fashion model 1945, or fashion model wikipedia, and clicking on the Wikipedia article from among the top results. (It is not one of the top results for Fashion Model, which is equivalent to fashion model for Google.) SilverLocust 💬 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is "But if [emphasis added] more people searching/linking "Fashion Model" are miscapitalizing the common noun than looking for the obscure film, then DIFFCAPS doesn't call for having the film at Fashion Model". That is true, but there is absolutely no evidence that most people are miscapitalizing the common noun. People are more likely to not bother with the shift key in searches than the other way around. That's further supported by pageviews for this article being at roughly the same low level as the two other films in the series[1]. Station1 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fashion_Model&oldid=1224735099"