Talk:Starlite (disambiguation)

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: no consensus to move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Starlite (disambiguation) → Starlite
• Starlite → Starlite (invention)

– Or Starlite (material). There's no primary topic. This lost invention at "Starlite" was never commercialized and its formulation seems to have been lost. It was only shown in one BBC special publicly, and there are many other uses of the term "Starlite" -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 08:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is the WP:primary topic, based on overwhelming pageviews and Google hits. Station1 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this contained neither a disambiguation page link, nor a hatnote, until recently, so people got dumped onto the invention page with nowhere to go. If they wanted something else, there was no such result. Further, the Google search results show no primary topic, since the material does not dominate the result listings, as most google search results are not about the invention. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like it's had a hatnote pointing to the video game for years. Station1 (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected. I had forgotten about the game hatnote. Though, other options were not linked -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seems very odd indeed that the material is getting so many hits when the Vietnam war operation gets more hits in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here expecting to support a move but even adding the Vietnam War operation and a "misspelling" do not change the preponderance of pageviews for the material. Could there be another reason for this? —  AjaxSmack  00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if it's simply a mispelling, people are looking for starlight. Seems unbelievable that this obscure subject nearly invisible in books is really getting this many views. We could just move it out for 3 months and we'd know for sure. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​"I'm wondering if it's simply a mispelling, people are looking for starlight." Possibly, but I doubt it since the overall pageviews for that WP:DICDEFish article are dwarfed by those for starlite (material). "We could just move it out for 3 months." That would be nice if we could just have a gentle(wo)mans agreement to move it for a set time and move it back with no prejudice to resume the discussion then. However, I think for whatever reason, starlite (material) is the most sough-after topic. —  AjaxSmack  20:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per AjaxSmack. Meets the criteria for a primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:45, 23 November 2018 (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.