 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This plot summary describes the movie (which has its own page); someone should edit so that this reflects the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKPhilosophy ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I took out some more movie based text, but the whole thing needs to be examined and probably rewritten by someone who has read the book. Why can people not see that this is about the book and not the film? If you want to write about the film, go to its article. -- Khajidha ( talk) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
It's also very poorly written, like someone is simply outputting a stream-of-consciousness narrative, resulting in numerous problems. For example, "Once there she meets Tom and four other survivors: Charlie, Tom, Don, and Lucy." Does that mean there's a 2nd Tom? Do the names matter if they're not mentioned again in the synopsis, except Don? I haven't read the book or even watched the film so I'm not qualified to edit it. I'm only here because I wanted to understand what the hype was all about. Crimson667 ( talk) 13:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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: moved. There is consensus to move as proposed. ( page mover nac) -- Flooded w/them 100s 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Bird Box → Bird Box (novel) – I don’t think that, especially after the release of the film, that this is the primary topic. Surely actual bird boxes are more primary as well. In any case, I think this move is an obvious response to the release of the much better known film. IWI ( chat) 15:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bird box should be left as is but Bird Box should be a DAB for the same reason as Red Meat. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:RECENTISM - Every major film adaptation of a novel prompts this kind of move request, but we should be allowing time for the immediate hype to settle before making any change. -- Netoholic @ 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bird Box should be a DAB for the same reason as Red Meat, indeed. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The film article has consistantly pulled in more page views than the book ever since it was created a year ago [1]; prior to that I don't see sufficient interest in the book article to justify it being a "primary topic". While I appreciate that the film is still quite new, I don't think we can accept "long term significance" for a book which itself is only a few years old. PC78 ( talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support ImproveWikiImprovment's point about actual bird boxes sold me (even though that redirects to nest box). Including (novel) would probably just help to clarify. The Way of the Fewture ( talk) 16:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. Also, per WP:SMALLDETAILS the current page configuration is perfectly fine. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 11:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It should be noted that users have been adding information about the film here, because it isn’t clear enough that this is about the book. IWI ( chat) 13:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. A novel should always be
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a movie that is based on it.--
Srleffler (
talk)
00:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- But there is also Nest box so its not just between the novel and movie. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support. That's a hell of a lot of page views from people who are finding themselves at the wrong article. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
09:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate, over the last 30 days
Bird Box (film) has received 7.2 million views, which is more than twice as many views as
R. Kelly, which is an absurd number. The novel has received 3.9 million, which spiked massively when the film was released. I would imagine less than 1% of these views were from people looking for the novel. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
09:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- First,
WP:RECENTISM. Second,
less than 1% of these views were from people looking for the novel
grossly misunderstands how search engines work by using keywords and context - they don't largely care about what we title the page, so almost every hit is exactly what they were looking for. Keep in mind, most are people who saw the film and are maybe now wanting to read the book. Moving pages actually is what breaks search engines because it takes time for them to update. -- Netoholic @ 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)- In my view, the book itself is recent enough to negate the "recentism" argument, and as I pointed out above, the film article was getting more page views than the book well in advance of the film's actual release last month. The novel is not a "primary topic" simply because it existed first. Bird Box would better serve readers as a dab page, not least if they are looking for actual bird boxes. PC78 ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- First,
WP:RECENTISM. Second,
- Just to reiterate, over the last 30 days
Bird Box (film) has received 7.2 million views, which is more than twice as many views as
R. Kelly, which is an absurd number. The novel has received 3.9 million, which spiked massively when the film was released. I would imagine less than 1% of these views were from people looking for the novel. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
09:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. By all evidence, this is one of many novels that are no longer the primary topic over their film adaptations.-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The film adaptation may or may not equal the novel in the race for primary status, but of far bigger import for me is the common term Bird box, which will surely generate lots of hits in the same way that Red Meat would. A dab page serves us best. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support while affected by recentism, it is still more suitable. Kaweendra ( talk) 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This plot summary describes the movie (which has its own page); someone should edit so that this reflects the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKPhilosophy ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I took out some more movie based text, but the whole thing needs to be examined and probably rewritten by someone who has read the book. Why can people not see that this is about the book and not the film? If you want to write about the film, go to its article. -- Khajidha ( talk) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
It's also very poorly written, like someone is simply outputting a stream-of-consciousness narrative, resulting in numerous problems. For example, "Once there she meets Tom and four other survivors: Charlie, Tom, Don, and Lucy." Does that mean there's a 2nd Tom? Do the names matter if they're not mentioned again in the synopsis, except Don? I haven't read the book or even watched the film so I'm not qualified to edit it. I'm only here because I wanted to understand what the hype was all about. Crimson667 ( talk) 13:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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: moved. There is consensus to move as proposed. ( page mover nac) -- Flooded w/them 100s 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Bird Box → Bird Box (novel) – I don’t think that, especially after the release of the film, that this is the primary topic. Surely actual bird boxes are more primary as well. In any case, I think this move is an obvious response to the release of the much better known film. IWI ( chat) 15:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bird box should be left as is but Bird Box should be a DAB for the same reason as Red Meat. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:RECENTISM - Every major film adaptation of a novel prompts this kind of move request, but we should be allowing time for the immediate hype to settle before making any change. -- Netoholic @ 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Bird Box should be a DAB for the same reason as Red Meat, indeed. In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The film article has consistantly pulled in more page views than the book ever since it was created a year ago [1]; prior to that I don't see sufficient interest in the book article to justify it being a "primary topic". While I appreciate that the film is still quite new, I don't think we can accept "long term significance" for a book which itself is only a few years old. PC78 ( talk) 11:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support ImproveWikiImprovment's point about actual bird boxes sold me (even though that redirects to nest box). Including (novel) would probably just help to clarify. The Way of the Fewture ( talk) 16:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. Also, per WP:SMALLDETAILS the current page configuration is perfectly fine. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 11:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It should be noted that users have been adding information about the film here, because it isn’t clear enough that this is about the book. IWI ( chat) 13:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. A novel should always be
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a movie that is based on it.--
Srleffler (
talk)
00:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- But there is also Nest box so its not just between the novel and movie. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 13:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support. That's a hell of a lot of page views from people who are finding themselves at the wrong article. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
09:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate, over the last 30 days
Bird Box (film) has received 7.2 million views, which is more than twice as many views as
R. Kelly, which is an absurd number. The novel has received 3.9 million, which spiked massively when the film was released. I would imagine less than 1% of these views were from people looking for the novel. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
09:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- First,
WP:RECENTISM. Second,
less than 1% of these views were from people looking for the novel
grossly misunderstands how search engines work by using keywords and context - they don't largely care about what we title the page, so almost every hit is exactly what they were looking for. Keep in mind, most are people who saw the film and are maybe now wanting to read the book. Moving pages actually is what breaks search engines because it takes time for them to update. -- Netoholic @ 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)- In my view, the book itself is recent enough to negate the "recentism" argument, and as I pointed out above, the film article was getting more page views than the book well in advance of the film's actual release last month. The novel is not a "primary topic" simply because it existed first. Bird Box would better serve readers as a dab page, not least if they are looking for actual bird boxes. PC78 ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- First,
WP:RECENTISM. Second,
- Just to reiterate, over the last 30 days
Bird Box (film) has received 7.2 million views, which is more than twice as many views as
R. Kelly, which is an absurd number. The novel has received 3.9 million, which spiked massively when the film was released. I would imagine less than 1% of these views were from people looking for the novel. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
09:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. By all evidence, this is one of many novels that are no longer the primary topic over their film adaptations.-- Cúchullain t/ c 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The film adaptation may or may not equal the novel in the race for primary status, but of far bigger import for me is the common term Bird box, which will surely generate lots of hits in the same way that Red Meat would. A dab page serves us best. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support while affected by recentism, it is still more suitable. Kaweendra ( talk) 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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.