Talk:Flower Power (song)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 move. There is no consensus that other articles and topics create enough ambiguity to require adding additional disambiguation in this title. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Flower Power (song) → Flower Power (Girls' Generation song) – Restore name of band, ambiguating title is unhelpful for majority of English language users, since Japanese song is not as notable in English print sources as the Ibiza club hit, adapted to Danii Minogue's You Won't Forget About Me. Per WP:DAB and Hurricane. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Only if that song by Danii Minogue was titled "Flower Power" it would be necessary to disambiguate further by artist name. A hatnote will suffice (which I've added). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Raykyogrou0, can you please cite from WP:DAB to support your view. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Use further disambiguation only when needed." WP:DABSONG.

Another example: would Off the Wall (album) have to be moved to Off the Wall (Michael Jackson album) because The Ugly Ducklings also released an album called Off the Wall in 1980?. Yes, perhaps if that album somehow managed to gain enough notability overnight to create an article.

Also, if the instrumental used on You Won't Forget About Me would get its own article, it would be at Flower Power (instrumental). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we do Google searches:

"flower power is" "dannii" gets 190,000 plain Google hits

"flower power is" "girls' generation" gets 35,400 Google hits

Which is the subject which is more notable in plain English Google? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that that refers to DJ Flower Power? Besides, this rm is about disambiguating "Flower Power (song)" from other songs. You used "You Won't Forget About Me" as an example, except the song is not even titled "Flower Power", the instrumental track used is. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

True it is difficult to separate DJ Flower Power from his signature tune, "flower power" but either way the instrumental is covered in the Danii Minogue article, which is why I cited Hurricane. You understand why Hurricane is relevant? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane is a redirect to Tropical cyclone because a hurricane, typhoon and tropical cyclone are all essentially the same weather phenomenon, but depending on the geographical location of the storm. That is different from this because this song is not the same as the instrumental "Flower Power", it merely happens to share the title. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB and no evidence of any special claim of exceptional noteworthiness. (And, per WP:DAB, what matters is whether a topic is covered on Wikipedia, not whether it's the subject of a separate article or not.) —BarrelProof (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

CommentWP:SONGDAB states that to "use further disambiguation only when needed". Why would it be needed here? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Raykyogrou0,

Okay you see where I asked "You understand why Hurricane is relevant? Why Hurricane is relevant is because Hurricane is folded into the Tropical Storm article like the Ibiza Flower Power is folded into the Danii Minogue song article. The fact that there is no article "Hurricane" is irrelevant for disambiguation, the fact that there is no standalone Flower Power (instrumental) or Flower Power (Mud song) article is also irrelevant for disambiguation.

But in answer to your question, in this case for at least 5 reasons:

(1) Because "Flower Power" and "Flower Power" and "Flower Power" are ambiguous. Looking at "Flower Power" and "Flower Power" and "Flower Power" it is impossible to tell which is the 1967 English song, which is the 2004 Ibiza instrumental, and which is the 2012 Japanese song beginning "Hikari to yami no mayonaka,..."

(2) Because the 2004 instrumental is 10x more notable than the 2012 Japanese song in English books

(3) Because more English speaking people listen to English-language songs than listen to Japanese-language songs (just as on ja.wp Japanese songs get priority), therefore inevitably more English speaking people will be looking for the Ibiza club hit.

(4) Because our Users don't know that Flower Power is covered in the Danii Minogue article. Readers come to Wikipedia knowing what exists in the real universe, not what we have decided should be forked or merged.

(5) Because removing (Girls' Generation song) is unhelpful to Girls' Generation fans too.

These 5 are fairly typical of these kind of WP:DAB issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, how is that irrelevant. WP:DAB does not specifically state that it is.

(1) That's what the hatnote is for.

(2) Google searches: "Flower Power ibiza" - 581,000 hits, "Flower Power Danii Minogue" - 109,000 hits, "Flower Power girls generation" - 2,070,000 hits

(3) Seems dubious. I speak Dutch as my native language, but I prefer listening to English-language songs. Japanese songs are also covered on the English wikipedia because there are plenty of English-speaking people who listen to them unlike i.e. Russian-language songs.

(4) If a reader is looking for the instrumental, it is most likely he types in "flower power" which has a hatnote leading to Flower power (disambiguation), which has a link to the Danii Minogue song.

(5) How is that unhelpful? Same thing as (4). Otherwise, the fan might just go to the main page and go on from there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There are other songs with the same title and there is no indication of any special notability for this particular song. Raykyogrou0, you can't take the count from the first page of Google results at face value -- it is often wildly inaccurate. If you click through the results to the last page of results, Google will omit some entries very similar to those already displayed. if you do that, the 2,070,000 hits from the first page become 241 hits. older ≠ wiser 13:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is a matter of disambiguation not just about notability. How are you supposed to get to the last page of search results exactly? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Right, and there are other songs at Flower power (disambiguation). You get to the last page of results by clicking on the little numbers towards the bottom of the page. older ≠ wiser 01:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, there is no need to disambiguate the title when the other songs (except for the instrumental) don't even have an article. Have you actually been to the last page, each page only shows 10 results. To get to the last page of over 2m hits would take forever so that doesn't make any sense. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Disambiguation applies to topics not only to articles, so yes, disambiguation is appropriate. And yes, I have -- as I said there are only 241 overall unique results and that takes very little time to get through. Just click the "10" and you are at the 100th result then continue clicking on the last number. older ≠ wiser 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Disambiguating the title in order to distinguish from other songs that don't even have articles makes no sense. That is why hatnotes exist. Okay, but in that case there are only 160 results for the instrumental.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
            • A lack of an article does not indicate a lack of importance or notability. Please see the comments above regarding Hurricane. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
              • The lack of an indicates the lack of need for disambiguation by article title, that's why we have hatnotes. Please see also my comment regarding Hurricane. The reason why it doesn't need it's own article is because it's the same weather phenomenon as a tropical cyclone, the only difference being it's location. You can't use that as an argument on distinguishing this song from others that don't have articles. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
                • Disambiguation is for topics, not just the titles of stand-alone articles. This is clearly expressed in WP:DAB. "Hurricane" is certainly not the only example of an important topic that doesn't have a stand-alone article, and the reason it doesn't is only one of quite a few such reasons. One such reason can be that a song can be covered in an article about an album on which the song appears. We shouldn't encourage separate articles to be created just for the purpose of making topics become candidates for disambiguation or candidates for primary status. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
                  • Isn't it ridiculous that Wiki does not have a "hurricane" article? It was apparently merged by British editors who don't believe in making any concessions to American English. But I don't see how any of that is relevant here. Gum-chewing coolster (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other Flower Power songs don't have stand-alone articles and appear to be quite obscure compared to this one. Gum-chewing coolster (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose With only one other article on a song kind of with this name (mostly a WP:PTM), the hatnote is sufficient. --BDD (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:AT, a policy, which reads, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles." WP:SONGDAB is a direct and applicable devolution of that policy. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, and at WP:SONGDAB, it says to "only disambiguate further when needed". p.s. By "consistency" at WP:AT it is meant that for example an article should be titled "<name of song> (<name of artist> song)" instead of "<name of song> by <name of artist>" or "<name of song> (song by <name of artist>) It has nothing to do with disambiguation. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many song articles are disambiguated only by (song), so the current title is consistent with those. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2013 (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.