Talk:Crazy Rich Asians (novel)#Requested move 20 February 2025

: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. :Crazy Rich Asians → {{no redirect|Crazy Rich Asians (novel)}}; :Crazy Rich Asians (film)→ :Crazy Rich Asians Strong policy-based argument that the film is primary. Only retort is refuted, soundly. "Helps no one" is not a policy-based argument. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 05:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

----

• :Crazy Rich Asians → {{no redirect|Crazy Rich Asians (novel)}}
• :Crazy Rich Asians (disambiguation) → {{no redirect|Crazy Rich Asians}}

– The film adaptation has been [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-01-01&end=2024-12-31&pages=Crazy_Rich_Asians%7CCrazy_Rich_Asians_(film) more viewed] than the novel one, especially last year. If the film isn't the primary topic, then perhaps the dabpage should be. George Ho (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - a dab page here helps no one. Red Slash 19:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose 2, per Red Slash. Support 1, move Crazy Rich Asians (film) to Crazy Rich Asians. Frost 06:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Frost 11:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Nom's comment – Shall I withdraw then? George Ho (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC); rescinded, 10:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Make the film primary, which is the right call on pageviews but also on long-term significance: the film has been far more influential and has been the subject of much more scholarship. Being the original source of the name is not determinative. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Red Slash|Frost}} What do you think about this alternative? George Ho (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agreed. The film is the primary topic and should move to the base name. Frost 11:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's probably fine Red Slash 00:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 and 2. In Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#From_other_topics, when a film is based on another work, the original work is often considered as a primary topic, such as All Quiet on the Western Front, An American in Paris, and The Sound of Music. --saebou (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Those titles are of long-time classic works. The original novel of Crazy Rich Asians is more comtemporary and has years before it becomes a classic novel. Furthermore, the novel's popularity couldn't outmatch the film adaptations, and, besides spawning a couple adaptations, its impact hasn't yet been proven to outbalance the film's. —George Ho (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep as is now. There is also a sitcom series in production for Crazy Rich Asians by MAX in the works which supports the preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :As-is, the upcoming series adaptation doesn't outbalance the film's potential primacy in terms of usage and significance. It's not yet released, and I'm doubtful about the future of Max streaming service, which has performed net losses and cancelled Tokyo Vice after its two seasons. —George Ho (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)