Jump to content

Talk:Bon, Bon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 25 February 2015

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. WP:SMALLDETAILS, which supports using small details to distinguish titles, was cited by supporters and opposers--is this little comma significant and used consistently enough to distinguish the title? Do the many other uses of "Bon Bon" drown it out regardless? No real agreement was found on either point. It is kind of funny that Bon-Bon (short story) was unanimously moved while this one couldn't find a consensus after six weeks. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bon, Bon → Bon Bon (Pitbull song) – as cover, and per many Bon Bon songs. But more so per Bon-Bon which should really also be moved... In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename the current name should point to the disambiguation page -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is the only song that has a Wikipedia page bearing its name. Just because there are other tracks of the same name, doesn't mean we need to disambig the article altogether, especially if none of those tracks impacted a music chart or was certified by any association that warrants their own articles. I will change my mind if someone found a reliable source indicating the other songs of the same name's importance. Also, we have {{for}} and {{about}} templates that are a better solution so that they can lead confused viewers to their respective parent articles (whether it be the album or the artist); as you can see, there has been no discussions by anyone regarding their confusion based on the article's title alone. Best, jona(talk) 19:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:AJona1992 but it isn't just songs, see WP:SMALLDETAILS and Bon-Bon? At the very least it should be Bon Bon (song) if we want to ignore the Four Voices and other songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to PTOPIC readers search or want to read this topic rather than the article you put in question, which falls under TPTM. Again, we have hatnotes to direct readers to the appropriate article(s) they want to read about. Best, jona(talk) 16:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:AJona1992 of course Pitbull is more popular than Edgar Allan Poe. But this is an encyclopedia, not a hit parade. Which is why Google Book hits are counted. The song isn't even registering. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comma isn't there, see jpg. So it is Bon Bon WP:SMALLDETAILS and Bon-Bon? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One has to wonder at the validity of the oppose !votes here.
  • Clearly there is no comma in the title.
  • Clearly with or without the song is hardly the primary topic according to Ghits.
  • Bonbon / Bon Bon has to be primary topic if primary topic is your argument.
So sad. Thoughtless opposition merely to avoid the name of the artist in the URL. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked billboard.com. They use the comma. Good enough for proving we didn't just make up this usage. --В²C ☎ 20:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goody, let's tell readers to check Billboard's spelling and not what's on the artwork. I thought there was something about a title being useful for people familiar with the subject... --Richhoncho (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Art work should trump reliable source usage? That's a new one. --В²C ☎ 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like this, yes, next case, possibly no, but then we are supposed to consider the options...--Richhoncho (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, follow usage in reliable sources, unless in a particular case Richhoncho doesn't like the result and insists we go with the art work instead. Is that it? --В²C ☎ 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are "reliable sources" that the correct name is William Jefferson Clinton but that's not where the article is... If you want to argue that, be my guest, but I will be opposing. In this case and similar cases the artwork, or iTunes, should be the reliable source. Billboard is a very good trade magazine, but not where to look for common name. It's Born2cycle who doesn't like disambiguation that is the problem here. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are such sources does not make it the most commonly used name to refer to said subject. --В²C ☎ 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ajona and Cuchullain. The current set up is fine and there is no good reason to move the page. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per many above. And may I add, seriously? The argument is "per many Bon, Bon songs"? What kind of argument is that? What does it even mean? The artist here is Pitbull - does he mean "per many Pitbull songs"? Well, I'm sure many require disambiguation; this one doesn't. Does he mean many other songs with this name? Of the list of songs on the Bon Bon dab page this is the only one with an article, and this is the only one named "Bon, Bon" (with the comma). What "many" Bon, Bon songs? I request that the closer remind the proposer not to make time-wasting proposals like this. If there is a good reason to move, then tell us what it is, clearly, so we can evaluate it. --В²C ☎ 20:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See related move on Talk:Bon-Bon. Unanimous support to restore the much more notable Poe story which gets considerable hits in Google Books, ahead of the Johnny Depp Bon Bon character, then why is there such attachment to a comma " , " as a WP:SMALLDETAIL which isn't on the Pitbull song artwork/cover? What is it about songs where removing the singer name is so beneficial to readers? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Benefit to readers is irrelevant in title decisions, as no title benefits readers more than any other title. The title of this article could be a meaningless computer generated random string and it would be of no less benefit to readers than the current or proposed title - because they are all of equal benefit: zero. --В²C ☎ 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Benefit to readers is not irrelevant in title decisions, as WP:RECOGNIZABLE titles benefit mobile users who pay for every misloaded and partially disambiguated title downloaded. As someone who does not edit article space you may not understand this, but you should know from your repeated drafts of new guidelines being user spaced and deleted by RFC and AFD that your views on the benefit of ambiguity are not shared by the editing community. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: wrote above "Benefit to readers is irrelevant..." It really doesn't matter what was said after those 5 words. The concept that anything is irrelevant to readers of Wikipedia is contrary to everything we are trying to do here. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a concept; it's a fact. Don't shoot the messenger. It's a fact that titles could be computer generated random gibberish and readers would be unaffected. That makes it irrelevant to readers. If you don't understand and appreciate this, don't blame me. --В²C ☎ 17:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue from the fact you hold Wikipedia readers in contempt. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've seen some off-the-wall comments before but this one wins hands down. --В²C ☎ 06:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, be nice. Red Slash 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bon, Bon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bon,_Bon&oldid=1206365138"