Talk:9 to 5 (disambiguation)

Requested move 15 March 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9 to 5 (disambiguation) → 9 to 5 – No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 9 to 5, which is misdirecting several incoming links. Closeapple (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for administrator: also 9 to 5 to 9 to 5 (business hours) to preserve history. (Apparently mentioning this second move the normal way breaks some bot — see talk history. And if redirects "can't be moved", just add content then move it anyway.)

I think that having the disambiguation page at 9 to 5 (disambiguation) instead of 9 to 5 may be a leftover result of article history rather than current guidelines about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. History:

The presently-titled 9 to 5 (film) (page ID 582398) was created on 2004-04-07. (I think it was named Nine to Five at the time.)
A few days later on 2004-04-16, the presently-titled 9 to 5 (page ID 599999) was created as "9 To 5", a stub about both the film and Dolly Parton song. Soon after someone added an intro about business hours. On 2005-08-23 it was tagged {{split}} because it was already about 3 or 4 topics: A section about business hours; a section about the Dolly Parton song and film; and a section about the Sheena Easton song. The Sheena Easton song was split off on 2005-09-04 as page ID 2610318], now "9 to 5 (Sheena Easton song)". What was left was eventually renamed "9 to 5" (lower case).
On 2006-07-06, User:Wing Nut suggested at Talk:9 to 5#Not an article that the "9 to 5" page be moved to Wiktionary instead. It appears there was no follow-up.
On 2006-10-16, User:Cab88 created the present disambiguation article (page ID 7469528), then added {{Otheruses|9 to 5 (Disambiguation)}} on the top of the older article and blanked the other meanings on that article, so that it was only about working hours.
In September 2010, the business-hours 9 to 5 page was blanked as having no references, then restored; then a See also section, for several of the disambiguated meanings was added; then it was then redirected to 9 to 5 (disambiguation), then restored again.
On 2011-01-03, the business hours content was merged to Working_time#9_to_5.
In May 2011, the old article page was changed to a redirect to 9 to 5 (disambiguation), then the redirects toggled back and forth by a couple editors who seemed to disagree on whether the film was the primary topic or not. It ended up as a redirect as Working time#9-to-5.

From the incoming links and page histories, it appears that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the topic of specific working hours of "9 to 5" is more of a Wiktionary topic than an encyclopedic one. I propose a two-part move: First, presently-titled 9 to 5 (page ID 599999), the old merged article page that is now a redirect, should be moved to some innocuous disambiguator like 9 to 5 (business hours) to preserve its page history, in case it's needed to satisfy the contribution requirements of Working time. Then 9 to 5 (disambiguation) (page ID 7469528) should be moved to 9 to 5. --Closeapple (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Current structure seems fine to me. The primary topic of "9 to 5" is the job hours, which it links to, with a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NOTDICT. A dictionary definition stuck in the middle of the working time article is not the primary encyclopedic meaning. The movie and two songs are easy competition. — AjaxSmack 00:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe right now there is not much info. But it is a very notable topic, and with some more expansion, sources can easily support an article such as History of working time in the United States which it could redirect to._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article on the History of working time in the United States would likely be a notable topic. But "9 to 5" in that context would still be a DICDEF all the same. — AjaxSmack 02:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fine as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 21 March 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.

"9 to 5 (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 9 to 5 (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#9 to 5 (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]