Talk:Perfect 10 (magazine)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 result of the proposal was no move. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect 10 → Perfect 10 (magazine) — Perfect 10 can also mean the now defunct gymnastic score, hence the current page is proposed into a disambiguation page — Jay Pegg (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support and other sports have perfect 10's as well. And some beauty contests. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The only other article with a similar name is Perfect 10 (single) which is already correctly disambiguated by a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But I do feel that the score is notable enough to have its own page, as there is a huge article potential as well as a list for gymnasts who achieved a perfect 10. There are plenty of news and web source for it. The magazine may be more notable in the US than it was elsewhere (thats because my newsagent stopped selling them after a year), wheras the single is notable in Europe, which maked the pair equally notable but being used in the Olympics in the past, the score is far more notable, which anybody should no problem naming one gymnasts who achieved a 10.0. hence the reasoning for psge move is that the score have a higher notability to the two. Jay Pegg (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What you've described so far is a dictionary definition of the term, and articles that are nothing more than dict defs are not appropriate. If you feel an encyclopedic article is possible, then you could try creating something like Perfect 10 (score). If it survives, you can then propose turning Perfect 10 into a disambiguation page. But with no article and only a dictionary definition, there is nothing to disambiguate beyond what is accomplished with the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The term 'Perfect 10' is already defined in List of gymnastics terms. It could also be appropriate to add a section about it to the article on the Code of Points which could include a list. I don't think it warrants an article because there isn't much more than can be said about it that isn't already covered in the ones that exist already.DanielEng (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I am more interested in a list of those who achieved that score, I proposed it as I thought I saw potential for an article, which would be used to introduce the list. Jay Pegg (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rare enough score to be remarkable enough for an article list, in all honesty. Pretty much every top gymnast from 1980 to 1991ish received a 10 at some point. And, as mentioned, if a list was something one wanted to do, it could be added to the Code of Points article. At any rate, I don't think the creation of a list for a colloquial term that can be addressed elsewhere should trump a magazine that uses the term as its title.DanielEng (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with DanielEng and Bkonrad's comments entirely. Knepflerle (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Forgetting the article proposal, I am going to stick to the article move idea as I have seen two way disambigation articles, in another words disambigation page that consists of two articles, my reasoning as stated earlier, the song and the magazine are as equally notable as each other. Jay Pegg (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any additional comments:

Is there an article for the gymnastics score? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. At most, a note on the magazine article indicating the gymnastics sense of the term should suffice. older ≠ wiser 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

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 (technical move requested at WP:RMT) (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect 10 → Perfect 10 (magazine)
• Perfect 10 (disambiguation) → Perfect 10

– This article is not primary per pageviews, the main title should be a disambiguation page as per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pageviews here. 162 etc. (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 11:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – no primarytopic here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. No clear primary topic for this term. Disambiguation page should be moved to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]