Jump to content

Talk:Kinky boots (footwear)

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

Requested move

[edit]

Move from kinky boots (footwear) to kinky boots

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


1960s Kinky Boots

[edit]

From my own memories of 'Swinging London' in the mid-1960s, the most widely worn women's boots from about early 1964 onwards in London (including places like King's Road, Chelsea) were calf or knee high and had fairly plain and not very high heels. Anything much over about 3" was rare. Stiletto heels were widely felt to be an unfashionable features of 1950s (and earlier) styles. For extra sex appeal, many young women wore mini-skirts with their high boots. Norvo 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– The boots of this kind is most likely the primary target. It has been so since 2005 (see above) but was changed without discussion last month. Harold O'Brian (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong Oppose". As the mover of the page, thanks for not notifying me. This is by no means the primary topic, the musical or the movie are by far more notable and searched for than the boots. If anything Kinky Boots (musical) should be loved to Kinky Boots. The Musical has received 2,022 views since start of this month (march). The boot however just 184 views. Its evident the boot is not the primary topic. It wasn't a controversial move in my opinion because it clearly isn't the primary topic and it would of been helpful if you had discussed or notified me.Blethering Scot 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily reverted per WP:RM, which requires that a move discussion be initiated "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". bd2412 T 5:42 pm, Today (UTC+0)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.
@BD2412: The move discussion had been started, editors had replied. There was no admin action necessary and the move back was inappropriate, especially as there was no harm or controversy that would harm the encyclopaedia. There is clear evidence that the boot is not the primary topic and the move was not controversial that it required a RM in anyway. Given there isn't a cat in hells chance of proving the boot is the primary it should not have been moved back and the discussion should of been continued.Blethering Scot 17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus regarding the lower-case usage of the term "Kinky boots": the footwear are the primary topic. The discussion evolved to the question of the majuscule; however, since the term "Kinky Boots" was not included in the original request, the question is clouded, and no consensus can be drawn. A new RM on that question would be entirely proper. Xoloz (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– As the pages were reverted back in the middle of a discussion I'm starting a new move request. The boot is not the primary topic. Per evidence provide above in the first three days of march the boot only received 184 page views to the musicals 2,022, the film 2,759 views, the album received just 68 views. The movie or the musical are clearly the primary topics but are too close for one to be considered primary over the other. The best decision is the front page should be the disam page or one of the two placed as primary but i believe that would be unhelpful given how close it is.Blethering Scot 18:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean have Kinky boots and Kinky Boots separately. That would be extremely confusing and would in my view make the situation worse, yes a boot doesn't need the B but you would still have to have a disam page for the capital ones and there isn't a primary topic there either its too close between two. It says applications of it are highly debated and i can see why.Blethering Scot 19:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For that to word you would need Kinky boots to have a hat note for other meanings linking to Kinky Boots which would be a disam. You certainly couldn't have one being the primary at the page. I think would be stupid but would agree to it.Blethering Scot 19:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is more or less the situation now. I suspect that people who are searching for any of the capitalized versions tend to type in "Kinky Boots" rather than "Kinky boots" - otherwise, there would be a lot more hits for the lowercase version, as readers would be typing it in first, realizing they were at the wrong place, and then typing in the capitalized version. bd2412 T 19:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would always type the lower, rather than the later and to be honest most people following sentence structure would. You could only asses that by looking at page views prior to the original move. Ill look at that shortly. You would still need a disam at the capital page which isn't in place now, there is unnecessary redirect in place. In that cast Kinky boots (disambiguation) should be moved over the redirect to Kinky Boots.Blethering Scot 19:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As suspected looking at January 4,009 looked at the lower case and then 21,041 looked at the musical. Thats a higher number than would expect looking at the boots so a high proportion are typing lower case actually wanting the higher.Blethering Scot 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that a higher number than you would expect looking at the boots? There are plenty of people who are interested in sexy footwear. Foot fetishism, for example, has over 100,000 views in the last 90 days. bd2412 T 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because 146 people looked at on day 1 in january, 141 day 2, and 157 day 3. On 1 march 52 people did, 68 day 2 and 64 day three. Thats a lot lower.Blethering Scot 19:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did something happen in January that would have a lot more people looking for one of the specific works titled "Kinky Boots" than looking for the sexy footwear? bd2412 T 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
January the first maybe, but not ongoing. Lets address the facts rather than through mud. Lets go back to december, same pattern for the boot, 1 december 174, 2 december 181, 3rd 131. Thats compared to 1,177 for the musical day 1, 1,333 day 2 and 855 day three. The patter continues every month going back. People are searching for Kinky boots, getting the boots and actually wanting the musical or the movie.Blethering Scot 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question remains, how do you know what people are looking for? bd2412 T 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stats don't lie. There is a massive difference in the stat numbers, post move. This shows people who actually wanted the boot and people who actually wanted the musical or movie. This shows that people do use sentence structure in searches. You cannot tear the stats apart as the show the same level of gap going back further and further. Ill add a further two dates to the comparison here post move on for last two days in fed after move day before. On 27 feb 76 people looked and a day later 57 did. These are much lower numbers than would be expected if people were searching for the boot. This shows the higher number are clearly attributed to people searching in lower case getting the boot actually wanting the capital one and moving to the page they wanted. When the got the disam page far fewer actually wanted to look at the boot.Blethering Scot 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now even ignoring the stats, which is hard to do and going with the lower case and then a higher case separate, Kinky boots (disambiguation) needs to be moved to Kinky Boots, there is no need for the redirect and there is no primary as two pages are too close together in stats so the front should be a disam page.Blethering Scot 20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to moving Kinky boots (disambiguation) to Kinky Boots, as there is clearly no primary topic for Kinky Boots. I think the status of kinky boots is a murkier question. bd2412 T 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with that outcome, as long as there isn't a primary at Kinky Boots as there just isn't one with that capitalisation. That said there is evidence to suggest the lower case search, actually want the higher case but given only 5 days of evidence as move didn't hold there will always be the argument that for 5 days people changed their search patterns. I would refute that and so would many who use the stats, but yes it could be debated.Blethering Scot 20:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stats don't lie, but they don't tell the whole truth either. You can't just judge what's the primary target by counting hits. You also have to consider what is named after what. Are the boots named for the movie, or is it the other way around? The original meaning of a term can very well be the primary target even if more people actually may search for a movie which got its name from the term. I also think, many people who are interested in these kind of boots are interested in the movie or the song just because the story and the lyrics are about these kind of boots. That may be one explanation for many people searching for the movie. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS. And in particular I strongly oppose that any proper name, whatever popular, becomes a primary meaning at the cost of a generic term. I cannot imagine the article "Madonna" saying "Madonna is this blonde idol. For other uses see Madonna(dab)", regardless google counts. (and don't tell me that in this case St Mary beats Louise Ciccone, because it is not true: I am pretty sure most refs would be for Madonna (art)). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:Staszek Lem, what does this have to do with Madonna? Also, do you agree that the capitalized "Kinky Boots" should be a disambiguation page? bd2412 T 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, that rationale about Madonna makes zero sense in this case.Blethering Scot 18:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. Forget Madonna. It was an example, not an argument A better example did not come to my mind. My point was it is against common sense to put a disambiguated title for a common word e.g., hammer (tool) for the article about hammer just because there is a rapper called Hammer dominated google search. (again, there is no rapper called Hammer.) If I am still unclear, just ignore me for my clumsy explanations. As for "Kinky Boots", I don't see why any of the titles must have preference (I don't accept raw google search results as an argument), i.e., I am for redirecting it to Kinky boots (disambiguation), unless some reliable sources state than nobody remembers the film or the song today. My second choice is for film (since musical is clearly secondary to film and the song IMO was a short wonder). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @User:Staszek Lem So to confirm you have no problem with Kinky Boots being a disambiguation page, as their is no primary. One point about the stats though they aren't raw google stats, they are page views for wikipedia, the stats for the musical and film are reasonably close so one isn't primary over the other.Blethering Scot 21:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • No problem. As to stats, wikpedia page views are confusing in opposite direction: film and musical are xlinked in both directions, so high chances when reading one to click for another hence page views are doomed to be equal. There is no way to know of two consecutive views which page was first. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The boots are the primary target, they are the generic word. All other things named so are named for the boots. This has been discussed and agreed upon years ago (see on top of this talk page) and I see no reason to change this. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Harold O'Brian: You mean the discussion between two editors, hardly. Anyway thats not whats under discussion anymore its whether the capitalised Kinky Boots should be a disambiguation page not whether the lower should be. Whats with the characters in your signature rather than just the plain username by the way.Blethering Scot 22:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean the discussion at the very top of this page, when it was moved from "Kinky boots (footwear)" to "Kinky boots". The discussion is about whether this page should be named "Kinky boots (boot)" rather than "Kinky boots" and whether the disambiguation page should take over the name of this page. That is clearly stated in the last move request. Nothing there about capitalisation. My name is Harold O'Brian, I don't know what strange characters you see in my name. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Harold O'Brian: It really helps if you read the full discussion. If you please read the points made above re WP:DIFFCAPS, thats the only valid reason that Kinky boots wouldn't be a disam page because the boots aren't the primary subject using the term Kinky boots. Now if you take Diff caps into account then the capitalised version still has an issue because the capitalised version still doesn't have a primary subject as the movie and the film are equal primary's looking at page views. Thats the issue now under discussion. Should the capitalised version, because of the no primary issue be a disam page. Have a look at the code in your signature print. Its code rather than ' thats what the ping didn't understand.Blethering Scot 22:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the request now is another, you should change it. I don't agree that the boots should not be considered the primary target for "Kinky boots". I think "Kinky Boots" may well redirect to the disambiguation page, as is the case now. Harold O'Brian (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kinky_boots_(footwear)&oldid=1212510507"