Talk:Suits (American TV series)

Name of the law firm that is the focus of the series

If you go to the USA website and watch the Harvey Specter interview video (http://video.usanetwork.com/series/suits/behind_the_scenes_5/meet-harvey-specter/v1342199), the name of the firm (Pearson Hardman) can be seen on the wall. comment added by Andrew.seier (talk • contribs)

Page move

Woodensuperman and others: Just wanting to raise a question about the page move from Suits (TV series) to Suits (U.S. TV series). I don't understand why it was moved, as this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it affects a large number of subsidiary pages, and it would have been good to see some discussion here before moving. With a hugely popular US show remade in Korea, this would seem more similar for example to Criminal Minds and Criminal Minds (South Korean TV series) than say The Office, The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (U.S. TV series). Thanks, Melcous (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, a disambiguated title cannot be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If something is a PRIMARYTOPIC, it gets the undisambiguated name. If it is not, then it is fully disambiguated along with all others that are also to be disambiguated. There is no PRIMARYTOPIC for Suits as it points to the disambiguation page Suit. In the example you give above, the title is at the undisambiguated name, i.e. Criminal Minds, not Criminal Minds (TV series) (which is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the PRIMARYTOPIC). --woodensuperman 09:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that disambiguated titles cannot have primary topics. See WP:PDAB. This absolutely was a potentially controversial move and required an RM. At this point I think it’s worth considering whether this topic is primary for Suits. В²C ☎ 22:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suits which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pages for main characters

Any objections to making separate articles for the main characters as List of Suits Characters is getting large. Also posted in their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceSheep99 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories

I have removed this article from Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As is noted on the category page, this category is only for "Television shows whose events take place in the 2010s but which were made before that decade." As Suits was made in the 2010s it should not be included in the category. Dunarc (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2023

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: not moved. Tough call here as the opposers do clearly have the numbers, however the supporters do have a strong policy claim. For said supporters, there was a relatively convincing argument of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on pageviews and WP:PLURAL. However, the oppose column pointed out potential long-term significance of the singular Suit and related WP:PRECISION. Additionally WP:ASTONISH was raised as a concern by those in opposition. It was pointed out that ASTONISH is an essay not a policy, though it was also noted that WP:TITLEPTM makes references to ASTONISH. All of this considered, the nom and supporters were successful in arguing that the proposed move meets WP:PT1, but I find that the long-term significance concerns of the opposers are based in WP:PT2 rendering the PTOPIC argument a nonfactor. In regards to the PLURAL argument, I also find that ASTONISH (supported in policy by TITLEPTM) and PRECISE provide a stronger case than PLURAL. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

---

• Suits (American TV series) → Suits

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PLURAL. The page views are overwhelmingly in favor of the American TV series being the primary topic for Suits: the daily average page views for this page is 9,877 out of a total of 10,158 page views for this page, the Korean series, the album and the dab page. That's 97%. If that's not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined", then nothing is. It's possible that some small percentage of users searching with "Suits" might be looking for Suit, but the total number of average daily views there is also miniscule, 460 compare to this page's 9,877, so that's obviously insignificant for primary topic determination. And WP:PLURAL explicitly allows use of the plural form for a different article than the singular form in cases like this. The bottom line is that anyone searching with "suits" is almost certainly looking for this article; that's primary topic by definition. В²C ☎ 03:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support moving the TV series to Suits as the overwhelming WP:primary topic. Even if we add suit to the mix, the TV series still gets 93% of pageviews. Suits is currently a redirect that gets nearly 100 hits per day, a high number for a redirect, almost all of whom want the TV series. This move will benefit those readers. Station1 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, suit primary for suits regardless of plural or casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Randy Kryn. Long-term notability. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - We focus way too much on page views, particularly those that we know are simply because of recent pop culture prominence. This move proposal is ridiculous. High page views inf act prove the opposite - that readers have no problem locating this article (because search engines do not care what we title articles and work more via keywords and content). -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  The vast majority of readers have no problem locating this article for exactly the reason you state. But that's true for virtually all articles. Still, there are maybe 75-100 readers per day who wind up on the Suits redirect and are astonished to land on a dab page instead of the article they want and expect. It's only for that minority that these type of RMs are even slightly important. Station1 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Whether we focus too much on page views is a matter of opinion, and you're entitled to yours (I disagree because page views are how we measure and are able to account for actual user interest, and, more important, our policy is to focus on page views for this reason), but when the article with singular name and alleged historical significance has only one-half of one percent of the interest that another article with the plural form of the same name has, this is a clear case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PLURAL. --В²C ☎ 23:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH, while by usage the American TV series is primary its not by long-term significance. The current redirect to the DAB rather than clothing seems the best compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  ASTONISH is not policy; it's part of an essay. --В²C ☎ 23:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:TITLEPTM makes reference to ASTONISH and WP:PRECISION says "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.". Is "Suits" precise enough to be understood by most people like Energy is? Although most people expect encyclopedia articles to be in the singular they are also likely to expect the plural form to go to the singular or at least the DAB because that's what we normally do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:ASTONISH, this really doesn't fix anything, while increasing confusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I was surprised to see that the TV show substantially exceeds the page views of all three of Suit (clothing), Lawsuit, and Playing card suit. And while there is a certain amount of recent-ism here, the show ended production four years ago. If it is continuing to get disproportionate attention (most likely because of Meghan Markle), that is not going to end anytime soon. Rather than make the TV show more prominent at Suit (disambiguation), my vote is to make this move and add a hatnote for the DAB. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hahahahahaha... oh, you're serious! WP:ASTONISH. The primary topic for Suits should clearly be Suit by overwhelming long-term significance. It is not superseded by a TV series, no matter how (in)famous one of its stars may now be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  ROTFLOL! Relatively few view Suit (singular) at all (less than 5% of those that view this page), so, at most, the tiny fraction (if any) of those searching with plural "suits" for Suit of the small fraction (<5%) of those that are seeking this page are even the only ones who might be "astonished" at arriving here instead of there. Are you serious??? --В²C ☎ 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Haha, what? When I came to this article, I was astonished to see that it had been tagged with a move request. No, this is textbook WP:RECENTISM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all WP:RECENTISM, which is primarily about avoiding bias towards breaking news events, which a TV series that ended production four years ago is clearly not. Not to mention that WP:RECENTISM isn't even mentioned as a consideration at WP:Titles or WP:Disambiguation, which includes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So RECENTISM isn't even a valid policy-based argument in title decision-making. --В²C ☎ 23:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.