Talk:Mademoiselle

Untitled

I think it's appropriate that French name should be linked here, but I'm not sure how it would be appropriate to do it. Romnempire (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2021

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: not moved. No consensus. Maybe focus on translating fr:Mademoiselle to expand the article first? Though we have Lady-in-waiting § France rather than a separate Dame de compagnie [fr] article (this is English Wikipedia) and Miss boldfaces the traditional French "Mademoiselle" rather than linking to Mademoiselle (so maybe the content belongs there). – wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Mademoiselle (title) seems to be a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 17:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes sense. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although "Mademoiselle (title)" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Mademoiselle disambiguation page in French Wikipedia, it is only a six-sentence stub in English Wikipedia, with other entries, such as Mademoiselle (magazine) or Mademoiselle (1966 film) receiving more coverage. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner: Can Wikipedia's current depth of coverage of a subject affect WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? I did not think so when I started this RM, but following your comment I'm asking because I genuinely do not know. You are correct that Mademoiselle (title) is disappointingly short; however I still think people typing "Mademoiselle" are more likely to be looking for the title than the magazine or film even with our current disparate length of coverage. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllegedlyHuman: You pose a fair question that will be ultimately decided, as it is in all Wikipedia issues, through consensus. As the hatnote atop Mademoiselle (title) informs us, it is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Damsel (disambiguation) page where the lead line states, "Damsel is a synonym for mademoiselle." Whether that is still a valid statement or whether the stock character damsel in distress has the primary meaning in the English=speaking world may also need to be assessed.

Others may disagree, but I feel that a primary topic has an expectation of being more than a stub — Mademoiselle (magazine) had been publishing for 66 years and has an entry in seven other Wikipedias, while Mademoiselle (1966 film) has an entry in nine other Wikipedias. One might expect that Mademoiselle (title) might appear in Wikipedias of nearly every language, but it turns out to have an entry in only eight other Wikipedias. The level of arguments and participation in this discussion, will obviously determine the outcome. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The title is the primary topic by long-term significance, and by pageviews (see [1]). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, while the title is, without a doubt, the primary topic in French, it is probably not the primary topic in English. Running a quick web search, once you get past dictionary definitions, "how to speak French" entries, and encyclopedias, a perfume comes up first, with also some entries about the 1966 film, the magazine, and articles about the French word that are not merely dictionary definitions. Based on this, there is no primary topic and the current arrangement is correct. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The purported article on the 'title' is little more than a dictionary definition. The page views for the title page vs. other articles is not overwhelming. Clickstream data might give better evidence if someone knows how to wrangle it. older ≠ wiser 18:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The clickstream shows how many times a link has been followed from one article to another. The data for the dab page for March is:

Mademoiselle_(title)	link	268
Mademoiselle_(magazine)	link	38
Mademoiselle_(1966_film)	link	29

For comparison, the data for January 2019:

Mademoiselle_(title)	link	622
Mademoiselle_(magazine)	link	57
Mademoiselle_(2001_film)	link	39
Mademoiselle_(1966_film)	link	36
Demoiselle	link	24
Miss	link	24
Madam	other	14
List_of_Revelation_Space_characters	link	11

Links with fewer than 10 clicks per month do not make it into the dataset. – Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Uanfala's data which shows that Mademoiselle (title) is the WP:PTOPIC for "Mademoiselle" by usage. Moreover, because all other topics named "Mademoiselle" derive their name from the French title, Mademoiselle (title) serves as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. feminist (+) 03:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose we have little more than a dictionary definition for Mademoiselle (title); arguably it shouldn't be a stand-alone article at all, but merged to some article on French honorifics. On the other hand, none of the other definitions given have enough page-views or historical importance to even resemble a primary topic. I think this leans slightly towards keeping the DAB at the undisambiugated title. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very obvious primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 93 out of 241 page views is not even half. Evident WP:NOPRIMARY. current set up is working helpfully and properly. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suppporters' comments, especially feminist's argument about WP:CONCEPTDAB are very convincing and valid for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and Dawid2009 above. I would like to note, however, that the article does need improvement, and that likely forms part of the reason several people have opposed this change earlier in this thread. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it's fair to say that the title is the primary topic by long-term significance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bkonrad. The page views show that the magazine gets almost as many views. No primary topic. There’s just no evidence that someone searching with “Mademoiselle” is much more likely looking for this article on the title than the article on the magazine. —В²C ☎ 06:36, 8 August 2021 (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.