Talk:List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered

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 to

• Sometimes when its hard to pin down the name for an article, it may indicate that the root problem is with the notability or the proper scope of the article. -- Netoholic @ 13:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This never happens, as the title does not define the scope. The scope is typically define in the lead's text. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not correct, refer to
      MOS:LEDE guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• No such user (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• List of films for which Bill Murray was considered isn't the world's best title but meh Red Slash 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, title seems fine and descriptive per topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title seems fine how? Down with blatant ambiguity, are ya? Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fine" covers it, the title reflects the page content. Although Red Slash's and Necrothesp's collab title may be ultra-fine (List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to something. I certainly read it as meaning something other than it actually did, so it's clearly ambiguous. List of film roles for which Bill Murray was considered is, I think, the best. Still, I'm not sure this article even needs to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]