Talk:Die hard (phrase)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
 | On 30 January 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to Die hard. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Die hard (phrase). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001183450/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/shortVisits/heroes/page7.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/shortVisits/heroes/page7.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 28 November 2019
- 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 - no support (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
– This is the primary topic for the lowercase term and requires no disambiguation, though it should be changed from a "phrase" to a word, as it is more commonly used. The film is the primary topic for the uppercase term, so it can stay that way, but the disambiguation should be moved to the proper noun version. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – The article suggests it's a phrase, not a word. And case is not enough for a primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, per the same reasoning in so many of Zxcvbnm's RMs of late. Being the original referent doesn't make the idiom the primary topic, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear about that. WP:DIFFCAPS does not work well, and we don't apply it, except when the capitalization scheme in question is quite distinctive (e.g. in mid-word). If anything the original Willis film is the primary topic, though the root phrase still has a lot of currency and has had some cultural impact aside from the film series. However, it was strongly associated with a battery brand long before the films, so we're back to pop-culture references, not the phrase as such. And no, this phrase is a phrase, not a word. If Zxcvbnm doesn't understand these things yet, then Zxcvbnm needs to stop doing RM nominations like this, as it's resulted in a tedious, repetitive mess to respond to. I think we all had better things to do with our Friday. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 30 January 2026
- 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. All opposed. They present arguments based on PRECISION, ASTONISH, and that the film Die Hard is the primary topic due to its viewership. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 19:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Die hard (phrase) → Die hard – The other topics use title case. If someone is using lowercase, they should be presented the article about the lowercase topic. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Creates unnecessary confusion as someone searching for Die Hard the film isn't going to necessarily use CAPS. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Capitalized or not, the film is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Iron maiden and Iron Maiden. Cilidus (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's a good argument against it to be honest. There is no way an article on a torture device "considered to be a myth" is pulling in 15000 plus readers a month, or nearly 30% of what Die Hard does, when Iron Maiden has 74000? I don't know if there is a tool to track click-throughs, but that's clearly people looking for the band who are ending up at the torture device. This page has 525 views a month, and so you're talking about incoveniencing over 50000 readers by accidentally sending them here under Die hard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- In regards to the stark 100:1 difference in current viewership, I am happy to switch to an oppose stance, however I would also like to clarify that I believe your assumption about readers to be incorrect. By assuming that no reader could possibly care about a disputed torture device, and that anyone reading the page must be there by accident, you seem to be putting words in readers' mouths by valuing your own disbelief over the available data, which I would advice against for future discussions. Cilidus (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's a good argument against it to be honest. There is no way an article on a torture device "considered to be a myth" is pulling in 15000 plus readers a month, or nearly 30% of what Die Hard does, when Iron Maiden has 74000? I don't know if there is a tool to track click-throughs, but that's clearly people looking for the band who are ending up at the torture device. This page has 525 views a month, and so you're talking about incoveniencing over 50000 readers by accidentally sending them here under Die hard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, as the film would be primary upper or lower cased. People search for what they are looking for regardless of casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Re "If someone is using lowercase, they should be presented the article about the lowercase topic", this does not reflect how people actually search. In practice, many readers would type die hard when looking for the film, without consciously capitalising a proper noun, and would reasonably expect to reach that article. Per WP:ASTONISH, it would be surprising for such a search to land on a relatively obscure historical phrase rather than the overwhelmingly primary topic. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)