Talk:Sinners

Requested move 13 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. I count 5 supports vs 2 opposes. No further consensus is going to develop. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

---

• Sinners (disambiguation) → Sinners
• Sinful (disambiguation) → Sinful

– Since Sinner and Sinning are standalone disambiguation pages, Sinners and Sinful dabs should be likewise standalone. Those researching the biblical and religious concepts of Sin will find the link to that article as the initial entry at all the related dab pages. Also, taking into account that Sinners (2025 film) has attained high visibility, if consensus were to prefer that the 2025 film Sinners should become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the proposed Sinners dab page, with Sinners (disambiguation) remaining as is, I would not oppose such an alternative option. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 03:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Modifying navigation because of a recent movie sounds like WP:Recentism, and I would oppose that by default, but because we do sometimes split derived terms, like with those related terms here, let's consider WP:DPT.

For "Sinners", a look at all-time page views for the redirect and the hatnote destination indicates this recent issue is subsiding. If we remove the most recent couple of years to ignore any such recentism altogether, we still see an average of 154 views of the redirect a month, and 85 views of the disambiguation page. The spikes on the graph often track each other. This could mean that around a half of readers are commonly forced to use the hatnote, and the occasional bursts of interest don't typically correspond to the presumed primary topic, which means the primary redirect should go. (Support)

For "Sinful", all-time page views for the analogous pair are much less clear. Still, the numbers for the earlier time period are in the same ballpark (145 vs 68), so it's worth a try.

--Joy (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support both per nom and Joy. Sin has a clear primary topic by usage and long-term significance. All of the related word forms are ambiguous between Sin and other works/subjects with the exact title or PTMs. I would re-evaluate whether Sinners (2025 film) is the primary topic in 1–2 years. I think it will be a tough case to make, even then, but it's way too soon now. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose both I support moving Sinners (2025 film) to Sinners as the primary topic rather than moving the DAB page. I think there's an obvious primary topic for that version of the word there. I oppose doing anything with "sinful", as the other articles get negligible views. It's also a more believable search when people are looking up the meaning of "sin". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  How is the situation with sinners obvious? --Joy (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  The film has gotten an extreme amount of pageviews for numerous months, and I don't believe that "sinners" is an obvious search term for "sin". Even if "sinner" was, we could argue that this is a WP:PLURALPT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  This reminds me of Talk:Rumours (album)#Requested move 21 January 2023. --Joy (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's a bit different. "Rumors" is literally the plural form of "rumor", for which there is an article. In that case, it's understandable that people would believe there is no primary topic for the word. The plural form of "sin" is "sins", not "sinners". There is no article for "sinner", so it's once-removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Eh, that seems like a technicality. Besides, sinner is disambiguated, with a link to sin as the common meaning at the top. Splitting the plural from the singular should probably require a better rationale than recentism. --Joy (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree, and I don't think it's "recentism", as it has been 6 months already and views are still high. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think if some want the film article moved as the primary topic, it would be best to have a discussion or proposal at that film article's talk page, rather than trying to decide that here with a small minority of editors who follow DAB pages. Considering there is potential ambiguity with "sinners", it may be helpful to leave that redirect as is until a clearer consensus and wider discussion is had. "Sin" and its adjectives usually go hand-in-hand, so I am uncertain if making the DABs the primary for these adjectives would be more beneficial for navigation. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  The views are high, but clearly on a downward slope. We're six months late to intervene, and there has been zero reader complaints, it's just us editors generally interested in disambiguation discussing post res. This tells us a lot about what the average reader thinks about this navigation path - it's not a word that they expect to see short-circuited. We can and should improve it by showing the list earlier, but there is zero actual need to overreact to what was so far a single recent spike in interest that is dissipating. --Joy (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  I expect there will be another spike with the film awards season coming up early next year. In the months that follow that, then it may be a good time to gauge the reader interest and view counts, but any change at this present time to me seems too soon and too much of a potentially rushed call when we do not have all of the clear long-term notability facts yet. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why earlier in the discussion I just analyzed the older data points, and they indicated that a modest change in navigation is appropriate. --Joy (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I don't have enough confidence to cast a formal !vote yet, but I think the current navigation system works just fine as intended and does not presently need any urgent "fixing", considering readers are still able to locate what they are looking for. It may be slightly easier to point "Sinners" and "Sinful" directly to the DAB pages for convenience to more easily locate the other subjects, but I am unsure if those would outweigh the actual definition of the adjectives and where they are derived from. So, I guess in a way I can see both sides of the argument for and against moving, and what the primary topic may be. I suppose I do support moving Sinful (disambiguation) to Sinful if there is enough consensus to do so, similar to Sinner, but I remain on the fence about renaming Sinners (disambiguation) and moving Sinners itself. Perhaps a direct link to the 2025 film is provided in the Sin hatnote? Out of all the "Sinners" subjects, there is a lost 1920 film, a 2004 film only known by that title in Germany, a novel, and an EP. Most of these are lacking in extensive coverage, so there may be a case for the 2025 film being the primary in due time, but at the very least, it is a more recognizable and common search term than the other entries and should warrant a mention in the hatnote at the very least, I think, for convenience and the ease of navigation. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Note that these are two different proposals - one is to change the primary redirect into a disambiguation list, and another is to go a step further and change the primary redirect from sin to the movie. I think only the former should be done, because that will be an improvement for the speed of navigation and will allow us to measure things without risking astonishing readers who expect a more general definition rather than a specific artistic topic.

  A hatnote would be possible, but I think it's a convoluted workaround. Readers who look up "sin" will land at sin, and then we tell them "Sinners redirects here, but maybe you meant the movie?". Just like we want to help the readers who look up "sinners" not to wade through a forest to get to the movie, we likewise want those who didn't look it up not to be forced to immediately look at something probably irrelevant to them. --Joy (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose both. Clear primary redirects. And popular as the film was, it certainly doesn't supersede the common meaning of the world. That's the definition of WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  What about sinner being a disambiguation page instead of redirecting to sin? It's inconsistent if "sinners", two modifications away from the root word, redirects to "sin", where "sinner" doesn't. Erik (talk | contrib) 17:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support because if we are okay with sinner being a disambiguation page instead of redirecting to sin, then we should be okay with sinners being a disambiguation page too. If someone wants to make sinner its own topic apart from sin, then I would support sinners redirecting to that and having a disambiguation page with "(disambiguation)". Erik (talk | contrib) 17:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a consensus can develop. BD2412 T 03:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 so we have 5 people saying disambiguate, 1 person saying keep the status quo, and 1 person saying go even further and replace with another primary topic. Both the minority options have been argued against pretty clearly. How come do you not see a consensus to disambiguate? --Joy (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I should mention that while I led with the numerical count in the first sentence above, I don't think it's the most important. Still, a majority of around two-thirds backed by arguments seems like a matter worth noting. --Joy (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support at least as far as the 1st goes there is probably no clear primary topic, the 2025 film has 384,476 views compared with only 7,951 for Sin however Sin is probably primary by long-term significance especially how recent the 2025 film is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Merge Sinners (disambiguation) into Sinner (disambiguation). Do not redirect to the 2025 movie, since that is never the primary topic, and suffers from RECENTISM bias in the USA. Keep "Sinner", "Sinners", "Sinful" pointing to "Sin", with a hatnote leading to their disambiguation pages. People who commits sin are the primary topic, sinning and sinful as well, which should be the base topic article sin. Move Sinning to Sinning (disambiguation) and repoint that to sin. -- ~2025-32349-50 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's a whole lot of assertions, but no rationale. ("People who commits sin" is not even correct English.) This is a reminder of WP:Consensus#Through discussion - work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. I'm guessing this was an appeal to some sort of common sense, but it doesn't explain how sinner and sinning have been disambiguated for twenty years and nobody ever noticed it wasn't common sense. Their readership in the last ten years (that we have stats for) just doesn't spike at the same times as does that of the sin article, meaning it's largely not the same readers. The clickstreams at sinner are an even more stark refutation of this assertion - last month, we could only identify less than 10% of clicks proceeding to sin from there. --Joy (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(procedural comment) After two more weeks, we didn't seem to have made any particular breakthroughs on this front, one more weak !vote for the majority option and one more outlier, even wilder than the existing ones. Can some kind soul please settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached (WP:CONACHIEVE) so we can move on? It's been quite a while since October 13, this is probably as good as it's going to get. --Joy (talk) 11:51, 27 November 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.

post-move

In the three months since the move, clickstreams have shown a large amount of traffic not going to the previously presumed primary topic:

clickstream-enwiki-2025-12.tsv:

• Sinners Sinners_(2025_film) link 4765
• Sinners Sinners_(1920_film) link 124
• Sinners Stateside_(film) link 106
• Sinners Sinners_(soundtrack) link 52
• Sinners Sinners_(song) link 16
• Sinners Sin link 12
• Sinners Sunday_Simmons_&_Charlie_Brick link 10
• total: 5085 to 7 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2026-01.tsv:

• Sinners Sinners_(2025_film) link 17645
• Sinners Sinners_(1920_film) link 509
• Sinners Stateside_(film) link 336
• Sinners Sinners_(soundtrack) link 181
• Sinners Sinners_(song) link 33
• Sinners Sunday_Simmons_&_Charlie_Brick link 25
• Sinners Sinner link 20
• Sinners Sin link 15
• Sinners Main_Page other 14
• Sinners One_Battle_After_Another other 10
• total: 18788 to 10 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2026-02.tsv:

• Sinners Sinners_(2025_film) link 6292
• Sinners Sinners_(1920_film) link 230
• Sinners Stateside_(film) link 158
• Sinners Sinners_(soundtrack) link 90
• Sinners Sunday_Simmons_&_Charlie_Brick link 17
• Sinners Sinners_(song) link 14
• Sinners Sinner link 11
• total: 6812 to 7 identified destinations

The pattern of page views (in logarithmic scale) has clearly continued tracking the recent movie. As that hasn't been the only topic of interest more popular than the generic meaning, that seems fine. --Joy (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)