Talk:All the Wrong Places (song)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, but no prejudice against renomination. As initially proposed, this RM was uncontroversial and could have been requested as a technical move. But In ictu oculi's dabifying of All the Wrong Places changes the conversation. Now that we can discuss WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among actual articles instead of hypotheticals, that's my recommendation if editors still want to make this move. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the Wrong Places (song) → All the Wrong Places – The page redirects here. Billboard Man (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in print sources the primary topic 2,000 GB hits is the well known book by James Fenton not a download which will be released on 8 September 2013. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and speedy if possible per G6. Regardless IIO comment, WP:PRECISION still applying as Wikipedia is not Google. IIO may be right in his findings, but the function of disambiguated titles in Wikipedia is exactly that: disambiguate an article from another, not to inform the reader what they read. By opposing it you are solving nothing, people looking for the book will be redirected here anyway, and creating a DAB page with one article is not productive as {{for}} exists for that reason. Unless someone creates at least one article, and therefore, it is needed a disambiguation, there's nothing to disambiguate. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seeing as the more concise version redirects to this page, it should be used as the main article. I would understand IIO's reasoning if there was an article about the book, but it would be better to have All the Wrong Places as the Example song rather than a redirect to an author. —DJUnBalanced (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djunbalanced, but what about the majority of users who (judging by the majority of print uses) why must they be redirected from a mention of a notable book to a less-notable song because en.wp has a stub on the song, but the book is in the author's article? Can you explain how you are helping book readers by redirecting to the song? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not "helpful" to move it, per WP:D itself disambiguation in the titles of articles "is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." And I would like to highlight the word "article", there is no other article which shares this title and although the likeness the book is searched more there is no information about the book in an independent article or in Fenton biography other than the mention of the book. As I said before, which is the benefit of having All the Wrong Places redirected here? Per WP:PRECISION or WP:NATURAL none. If Fenton book is notable per WP:NBOOKS it should have its own page. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's ~~no information about the book~~ there is now - this is part of wikipedia's editing bias towards pop music, TV, sport and video games. Judging by article coverage one could guess that there are only 2 or 3 book editors and 100 of song editors. Maybe 30 of the song editors could be seconded to correct this imbalance for 2 years? Maybe Tbhotch you'd volunteer to go on secondment to WP Books and help out :).

The above sounds as if I'm joking, I'm actually not, the massive overweight of this encyclopedia is a serious problem. What we shouldn't do is add to the problem by being self-referencing, "the universe outside wikipedia doesn't exist" Out there in printed sources land the book not the song is still WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That we have nothing on it? Well, then add something. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Guess what the primary meaning of "nice" is in Google Books? Guess what the WP article is when you type in nice? Why aren't they the same? Because we work within the confines of WP and what WP does offer, what it can offer, and what it should offer. And just like WP doesn't really have a good article on niceness and therefore it loses to the city, the book doesn't have an article and already is losing to this song. So move it away from an absolutely unnecessary parenthetical and accept that we don't have the Wikipedia we need but the Wikipedia we deserve. Red Slash 07:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no. Ignoring the example of the adjective wikt:nice (how is that relevant to this song and book?) WP:DISAMBIGUATION is clear on this. The guideline was amended mid 2010 to clearly state "covered by Wikipedia articles" not as previously implied has its own article. This is the current wording:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles.

This single term (All the Wrong Places) is ambiguous since it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. The fact that coverage of the book is virtually non-existent is a reflection of editor priorities, not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reality in reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from WP:DISAMBIGUATION, here are links to the [http://www.amazon.com/All-Wrong-Places-Southeast-Reportage/dp/1862077835/ Classics of Reportage] and [http://www.amazon.com/All-Wrong-Places-Politics-Traveler/dp/0871132044/ US edition] of a major modern poet's essays on Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines and Korea from 1973 to 1987. Since we're saying that a download that hasn't been released yet is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the book, at least take a look at what the title (song) as article was created, currently disambiguates from. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIO, why you insist to ignore what WP:D says: "disambiguation in the titles of articles is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one *existing Wikipedia article* to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." You cite DAB but at the same time ignore DAB? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly IIO, do you know what "article" means, because in the quote you quoted it clearly says "more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." There aren't other articles with this name, regardless how much you effort to explain why it is incorrect. If there were two articles (not concepts) that can create confusion like in Titanic (disambiguation) there would be a reason to disambiguate; disambiguation in Wikipedia was created to avoid confusion from article A with B, not concept A and B, even when B doesn't have a Wikipedia article, or according to you According to You should be in (song) because it is a common expression? This violates WP:NATURAL, and this RM can explain you why and when parenthesis are used and correct, because right know we don't have an article of a book, it is a red link. Your comments neither answer why people searching the book should be redirected to the song, it is stupid to left a redirect to "(song)" when they do not search the song. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tbhotch, sorry but we've been here before, and as before you are reading in "standalone article" "separate article" for "article" where the text does not have it. WP:D clearly says:

(as I cited above) "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles"

(as you cite above) "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead"

Both these sentences in WP:D recognise the same thing, "coverage" and "expected to lead," not whether an article is wikt:standalone. In this case the 2,000 GB hits for All the Wrong Places show that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the book, not the yet-to-be-released download, and consequently there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. Anyone interested in Oxford University, journalism, modern English poetry or the Vietnam War would expect All the Wrong Places to lead to the article covering the book All the Wrong Places. Maybe after 12 months if the download passes WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENT then it also will have Google Book results, at the moment it does not. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a strange reason you believe that Google Books is important enough to give books and magazines a place in Wikipedia. If Ghits are not taken in consideration in many RMs, why GBHits should, because they are printed media? It is the same thing,the difference is the on-/off-line concept. I am going to use your words against you, you put emphasis in the word(s) marked with asterisks, I will change the emphasis to what the guideline refers:

(as I cited above) "when it refers to more than one topic *covered* by Wikipedia articles"

(as you cite above) "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be *expected to lead*"

The mention of Fenton's book in his biography is not an article, there is no article ambiguity, per what WP:DAB says "Wikipedia articles". I'm not going to waste more my time with this, if you can't read in plain English that *disambiguation is used to avoid ambiguity in articles*, not because I say so, but because WP:DAB, the guideline you are citing yourself, is your problem. It is a shame being member that protects and follows WP:DAB you don't have any idea how or why dabs are used, and you can ask anyone at WT:D whether or not WP:D guidelines apply also to ambiguous concepts, because the way it is currently written applies exclusively to article titles, not the subject of the ambiguous phrase; and instead of creating a dab page with "All the Wrong Places", you are intending to left a redirect to the page about a song, and regardless if it is moved or not the people searching the book still being redirected to the song. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is just a restatement of your reading "when it refers to more than one topic covered [as a standalone title] by Wikipedia articles. Coverage is determined by coverage, not by whether articles are standalone or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the Wrong Places → All the Wrong Places (disambiguation)
Hello User:Billboard Man, User:Djunbalanced, User:Tbhotch, User:Red Slash - for your info, and to make life easier for the unfortunate admin having to close this RM, please be advised that I have added the notable subjects in Google Books to All the Wrong Places per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. If you are still convinced that the UK rapper's download is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then All the Wrong Places must be moved to disambiguation, for myself I Oppose as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The updated DAB makes it quite obvious that if there is a primary topic, it ain't this song. There might even be a case for further disambiguation as the phrase All the Wrong Places (song) might be more often taken to refer to the song Lookin' for Love. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"rapper" or "recording artist"

I made an edit, which was fair enough reverted. But what can we do to tell people that Example isn't a Country & Western singer? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, click here. :) --03:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely Example is more than a rapper - you don't want to sell someone short :) I don't know much about this particular artist but I am guessing they write, rap, play a role in developing a backing track, produce etc. If I'm wrong by all means change it back. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes his own article Example (musician) does indeed describe him as a "rapper". But if someone reads this song article they might well think he was a country and western singer (you understand why, the words of the song sound like a quote from the 1980 Country song Lookin' for Love (in All the Wrong Places) featured in the film Urban Cowboy) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gleave has rapped in the past but this song and the whole new album will feature no rapping. I can back this up with a recent interview. As long as genres are made clear in the article (which they are) and people know that he's a singer then there's no problem. --DJUnBalanced (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]