Talk:Official Secrets

Requested move 15 October 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Official Secrets (film) → Official Secrets – There are two topics called "Official Secrets", one being the 2019 film Official Secrets (film), and the other being a TV episode, Official Secrets (Yes, Prime Minister). The episode redirects to List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes with only one sentence covering its premise, and the redirect link only shows a daily average of 1 pageview per day across its existence, and basically 0 average pageviews this year, as seen here. Meanwhile, the film has average 494 pageviews this year as seen here, so it is the primary topic of the two. The episode redirect link can be a hatnote. (There is also Official Secrets Act, but that should not be considered as it is only a partial-title match.) Erik (talk | contrib) 13:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom, this seems to be the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, * Pppery * and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Sole such Wikipedia entry thus obviating need for parenthetical qualifier "(film)". As for the disambiguation page, Official Secrets → delete to make room for move. Hatnotes should indeed suffice. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Official Secrets is currently a two-way DAB but with a See also to Official Secrets Act so essentially a three-way DAB. If this move goes ahead, both a link to Official Secrets Act and to the Yes Prime Minister episode need to be covered by hatnotes. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:PARTIAL it's not a three-way dab, that's why Official Secrets Act is only referenced as see also in the disambiguation page. "Act" is not a disambiguator for that title, it's part of the common name. CNC (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with all of this, I think it's exactly what I said too, but if anyone else has difficulty understanding my post I hope your post will clarify it for them.

  But the main point of my comment was the need for hatnotes... any opinion on that? Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Oh ok then, maybe I misread your comment slightly. Agree with hatnote at Official Secrets to Official Secrets (Yes, Prime Minister) per primary topic and one other, not convinced it's needed for Official Secrets Act but whatever. RMs get too bogged down on hatnotes, whereas opinion on them should be intended as advisory for the closer and not much else. The discussion is about consensus for moving the article, not on post move cleanup. CNC (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Disagree with important parts of this. Post move cleanup is an important part of closing any RM. If consensus on what needs to be done is reached during the RM, this is helpful both to the closer and to subsequent editors of the article. And a very common form of closer cleanup is tidying up redirects and hatnotes. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's a bonus not a requirement, that was my point. Sure it's helpful, but it's not worth stifling the discussion when there is consensus for a move. In all honesty other editors aren't going to respect the consensus over hatnotes used just because a closer updated the article post move. Sure I've referenced consensus in RMs before based on such things, but given most closers won't, best not to ask for too much imo. CNC (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom and delete the disambiguation page per primary topic and one other. I was going to close this and tag the disambiguation page with G6/14 in absence of a magic wand, but then saw the above comment regarding three-way dab that I wanted to counter so thought meh I'll !vote. CNC (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2025 (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.