Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Latest comment: 5 months ago42 comments24 people in discussion
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 reviewafter 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. There was no policy-based or otherwise evidence-based opposition to this move, except for Andrewa's late reference to his essay. However, that one !vote is not enough to overcome the arguments presented in the nomination, which presents clear evidence that WP:PT1 is met, and which was supported by a majority of participants. Toadspike[Talk]10:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
– The film is pretty clearly the primary topic by usage. The film gets over 65% of pageviews of anything titled something even remotely like "Inside Out" (first ten here), and the pageviews are 7.8 times the pageviews of the franchise, which is the next highest article (please note that I have limited pageviews to the past year to avoid the 2024 surge in results caused by the release of the sequel). The film fulfills the bar required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought. The views out of the disambiguation page also reflect this; the film article gets over 60% of the views out of Inside Out, which is more than everything else combined, and over five times the amount of the sequel, which is again the second highest.
Note: Please keep in mind that the primary topic is neither what first comes to your mind, nor is it the dictionary definition. Wikipedia does not have an article on the concept of turning an object so that its inner surface faces out, and such an article could not be viable, because it is not an encyclopedic topic. As a result, it is not a contender for the primary topic; only the articles actually listed at the disambiguation page are contenders. There are a number of articles where the primary topic is a specific subject even though it shares a title with a common word or phrase, including Often, Twice, and Tangled. Ladtrack (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.BD2412T 02:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC) —Relisting.TarnishedPathtalk03:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The problem with the clickstreams is that the number isn't really over 60%. We could identify 604 clicks there from the list, but there were a total of 1,471 views that month, so that's actually about 41%.
I think a more coherent clickstream-based argument would be that there were also 120 clicks to Inside Out 2, and 117 to the franchise article. With 133 other clickstreams and 103 filtered clickstreams, the ratio between those two groups is ~78%, which is more impressive.
This does in turn lead to the question whether the first film in the franchise is the best primary topic or should the franchise article be the WP:BCA for the primary topic. --Joy (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support 1st, oppose 2nd per Zxcvbnm above. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, typing in title case indicates the intent of looking for a titled work as opposed to the dictionary term, as evidenced by "iron maiden" vs. "Iron Maiden" and "friendly fire" vs. "Friendly Fire". I would oppose making "Inside Out" point to the franchise article since with two films and some minor media, it's barely a franchise, and the sequel is clearer with the numeral 2 as opposed to having a subtitle, like the Jumanji films do. Erik(talk|contrib) 21:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose far too many works named Inside Out to give excessive weight to a more contemporary film. It may be the most popular link off that page today but there's no assurance that will remain the case years from now. Masem (t) 21:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The film is over 10 years old by now, though. Median daily pageview for the disambiguation page is 30. Sampling the various other Inside Out topics, they're typically less than a dozen every day, some going up to two dozen. Considering the long tail of film article traffic, even if traffic for the 2015 film decreases over time, it will still easily be in at least hundreds for years to come. It could easily be returned to secondary-topic status if it gets low enough to be like the others. WP:PT2 can apply too -- looking at Google Scholar, it's obviously the most written-about film, and putting in album as a keyword does not show any albums meeting WP:PT2. Erik(talk|contrib) 21:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I still think we are putting too much weight on recentism. It would be different if there were only four or five possible titles, but the large number here spanning multiple media, decades, and origins means we should defer the disamibg page as the primary topic. Masem (t) 22:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any policy or guideline saying that no article can be primary if there are many articles with the same title. For a similar example, there are a bunch of things called Let It Go but the Disney song is primary because it receives by far the most pageviews; a 2020 proposal to change that failed because, and I quote, "there is no 'too many topics' cut off for one topic to be primary. If there are a thousand topics for a title and one of them is primary, then one of them is primary".
I still think we are putting too much weight on recentism. I don't think recentism is being correctly applied here. It isn't just "you can't pick the new one because there are older things", you have to consider how the pageviews of each topic will change in the future. That page recommends a ten or twenty year test to judge a new topic, and this article has quite literally passed the ten year test with flying colors because it has been ten years since the film was released and it's not only the most popular article, but more popular than all the other ones put together. Twenty years requires a bit of extrapolation, which can be easily done. The worst case scenario for Inside Out is that its pageviews end up matching something like A Bug's Life, which is 27 years old and also the least popular of Pixar's older movies. This is extraordinarily unlikely because of how much more popular Inside Out was and continues to be, but let's say that happened. If in another 17 years Inside Out has the same number of pageviews that A Bug's Life has now, and everything else retains its same level of popularity (unlikely), it would still be at over 60% of pageviews of everything called something like "Inside Out". That's over twenty-five years after the film is released, and I gave the least advantageous possible comparison; it will almost certainly be higher than that. 60% is still high enough to be the primary topic, and even if somehow the ratio ends up being too low in 17 years, we can just change it back in 2043. Ladtrack (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I know there's no direct policy reason for my rationale, but I still feel that given how many things are named "Inside Out", that to give the primary topic to a film, even if that's popular film and a high viewership page, that it basically treats all the other Inside Out topics as substandard. I could see moving this to "Inside Out (film)" as the most popular film of all Inside Out films, and that's only masking about 6 other topics, all which are far less recognizable films with that name. Masem (t) 05:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I only oppose #2 as proposed per Zxcvbnm, Erik and BarrelProof, as all entries listed at the current disambiguation page do have title case. Weak support #1 per nomination, but we should indeed consider the WP:10YT, even though this is clearly one of the most popular works with the title (and personally one of my favorite Disney and Pixar films, aka movies). If this move goes through, please do Inside Out → Inside Out (disambiguation). Thanks, 1isall (talk|contribs) . . (he/him) 14:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment from nominator: Because almost everybody would prefer the disambiguation page to be moved to Inside Out (disambiguation), I have changed my proposal to make that the proposed destination. Please note that everybody that had posted a reply prior to this comment was responding to the previous version of the proposal, in which the disambiguation page was moved to Inside out. Ladtrack (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, it would temporarily, but if this request succeeds, the malplace would be removed almost immediately. So my point still stands. Thanks, 1isall (talk|contribs) . . (he/him) 04:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The arrow there means move the current page at the left hand side title to the right hand side title. It doesn't refer to redirects. --Joy (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong support of both - The year is 2050. "Inside Out" has now become the most famous film in the world following the election of Global Empress Dora la Exploradora, whose favorite movie is Inside Out and who demands it be shown across the world in every movie theater at least once weekly. By 2060, all other films are banned; only Inside Out is shown. By 2070, watching Inside Out twice daily is mandatory. In 2071, a wikipedian timidly suggests that maybe Inside Out (2015 film) is the primary topic for Inside Out. The request is summarily shut down--"Too many other topics by that name", they shout, in between their two mandatory viewings of the movie that day.
Okay, that is a bit excessive, but it shows that there does become a point where it really doesn't matter how many other topics there are that share a name; one can still become primary. That bar is easily, easily cleared here. RedSlash16:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support per nom. There is indeed a clear primary topic as evidenced by the fact that 90% of the time the other 9 most viewed Inside Out-related articles don't even surpass this article combined. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Even though I support this, I think we just don't have a consensus or are nearing one after over a month of this discussion being open. I think it's time to wrap it up. Erik(talk|contrib) 14:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
.svg){kind=small}
