Talk:Angels (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

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.

In its current state, Angels is merely a redirect to Angel, but in my case, Angels is an encyclopedic, valid article about a television episode. I would also use the {{twootheruses}} template to redirect people to Angel from the new article. Anthony Rupert 13:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• This seems a bad idea. I don't think that the TV episode qualifies as the primary topic -- there are many other likely meanings of the term "Angels". older ≠ wiser 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. What would most people searching for "Angels" expect to find? The Angel article, or the Angels (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) article? It's obvious. Apart from that, there are other articles titled "Angels" that are more notable than this episode, Angels (song) for example. Crazysuit 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What about Queens as opposed to Queen? Those are two different topics. And not to start an argument, but who are you to determine whether a song is more notable than a television episode? Anthony Rupert 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The purpose here is to determine if there is a consensus to change. Please respect the opinions of other editors. I see nothing in the proposal to indicate that the television episode is the primary use of the name. That is the point that will sway opinions your way. Right now a redirect from the plural appears to be the primary use. Vegaswikian 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh...I am respecting his opinion. I merely asked a question. Notice how I stated

        Not to start an argument, but...

        Anthony Rupert 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- primary topic for Angels would be more than one Angel, so the current redirect is correct. -- JHunterJ
• Oppose. JHunterJ has put it better than I could. Andrewa 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Follows the pattern of 911 (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) and Web (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit). Note that most episode titles for this series are common English words, which we would not expect to direct us to an episode of this TV program. It's hard enough for me to see how this episode is notable enough to merit its own article, let alone how it should become the primary target of a search for a common English word. As pointed out, this word has certainly been used many times as a title for other works, and there's little to suggest this is the most notable of such works. zadignose 15:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't replied here in three days, which means that I stopped caring about this. I see everyone's point. Anthony Rupert 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose primary topic is not the SVU episode, further, there are other things titled "Angels" that are more notable that the SVU episode, such as Angels (TV series) or the dozen other things listed at Angel (disambiguation). 132.205.44.5 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: So many other uses of the word, which nominator presumably wasn't aware of. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. WAY too many other encyclopedic things (books, bands, songs, etc) with the primary name "Angels" listed at Angel (disambiguation). Sohelpme 03:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per everyone above. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) - "Creating a redirect in cases like crayons is advisable as well, since third-party websites started adding automatic links to wikipedia from their topics and many of them follow the opposite convention, i.e., pluralization." -- Beardo 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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.