Jump to content

Talk:Go Now

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

Comments

[edit]

Probably a good idead to include that Wings did this on thier Wings Over America Tour with Denny Laine on piano and vocals. Runningshoes66 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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: Move per proposal. There is a good case made for why the No 1 hit single is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS says we do not need a dab page. Salix (talk): 19:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– In the past 30 days the song has 4,049 views and the film has 757 views. Therefore, the song should be made into the primary. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Hoops gza (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—assuming far too much of readers. Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on basis that the song is less obscure than the film - or, create a dab page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. How is at all useful, or warranted in any other way, to jump with an abbreviated argument to the conclusion that there is a primary topic, in this case? What conceivable advantage can there be in the proposed move, and to whom? Here's an arrangement that would make good sense, because it would actually identify articles with precision, and distinguish them so that readers know what they're getting, and where to get what they want:
How is the existing arrangement, or the proposed arrangement, an improvement on that natural state of affairs? NoeticaTea? 09:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, is your question rhetorical? Mine (see above) is not. Care to answer it? And please show how the quite subtle details at the guideline PRIMARYTOPIC settle this matter. (Read it all, please, before answering.) Please also show how in the case under examination this general point in policy at WP:TITLE is satisfied: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." Note also the nutshell summary for that policy page: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Please show how the proposed new title for this article meets those policy requirements. NoeticaTea? 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want to know how it's useful to make a topic that is more sought after by a degree of five the default page for the term? Keep in mind that with the current arrangement, readers looking for the song and typing "Go Now" will be counted in both page views. Do you really not understand that argument, or do you disagree? Perhaps you want larger margins before declaring a primary topic? --BDD (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I want to know, for this case. And so far you have not given a clear answer. Let's see:
  • "readers looking for the song and typing "Go Now" will be counted in both page views"
Typing in where? And don't you mean "typing in and navigating to", or something like that? What point are you trying to make by appealing to pageviews? Two cases on which I would like your comments:
  1. The reader types "go now" in the search box, within Wikipedia. At present, prompts pop up in this order: "Go Now"; "Go Now (song)"; "Go Now and Live". That is not optimal. But nor would these prompts be optimal, after the proposed move: "Go Now"; "Go Now (film)"; "Go Now and Live". How is there any benefit in suppressing information that clinches the decision, for anyone after the song or the film or simply following up an ambiguous allusion they have come across? These, though, are optimal prompts: "Go Now (film)"; "Go Now (song)"; "Go Now and Live". Everyone is informed, with no downside.
  2. The reader makes a raw, intuitive, unformatted Google search on go now, and the top-ranked hit is the present article: "Go Now (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", clearly highlighted. (Go on, try it!) That's pretty good! But the information that it's a song would not show up – certainly not highlighted like that – after the proposed move. Now, under the present arrangement the WP article for the film (Go Now) is ranked way down at 50 in that search. Even when you add "film", and make the search go now film, see what happens: that WP article does not turn up at all in the first 100 hits. Huh! "Go Now (film) - Wikipedia" does turn up near the top, but it's Italian Wikipedia, because there they do use the arrangement proposed in this RM. But then, the listing for the song at Italian Wikipedia is absent from the first 100 hits, in that first two-word search. Only under the optimal arrangement (both articles with the obvious precision) can Google find what it zealously strives to find, in our Wikipedia articles. It promotes them to the very top; and all we have to do is label things to facilitate that.
  • "Do you really not understand that argument, or do you disagree?"
As you can see, I understand the mechanics of all this very well, for actual use by real readers in the real world.
  • "Perhaps you want larger margins before declaring a primary topic?"
No. I want people to read and understand all of those guideline and policy provisions, to apply them with insight, and thereby to serve the needs of the readers – the obvious primary concern, and quite rightly enshrined in policy at WP:TITLE.
And you?
NoeticaTea? 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was strange that you were apparently opposed to the entire idea of primary topics, or at least the practice of that guideline. I thought I must have been missing something. Then I saw the diff Born2cycle linked in the Wizard of Oz RM. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that I profoundly disagree with your interpretation of PRIMARYTOPIC and find it contrary to accepted practice. You also seem to advocate qualifiers for informational, rather than just disambiguating, purposes, which I also disagree with. We'll have to agree to disagree. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what you call "accepted practice" appears to be "the way editors appeal to PRIMARYTOPIC and the like". I have argued and shown at various places that most editors are not really aware of the articulated details of those provisions. For my part, I'll have to accept that you are unwilling to respond to detailed and rigorous analysis. Or less charitably (but it can't be dismissed as a possibility), that it's all a bit too hard. The basic principle at WP:TITLE is to serve the readers. Help them find the articles they want. It is pointless to descend into particular provisions for titling, if we lose track of the goal itself. Many RMs go perversely, because many RM-haunting editors and RM-closers have lost the big picture. This does not happen when by a concerted effort we attract general editors to an RM. Then good sense prevails, and the needs of readers are indeed paramount and preserved. A prime example of a good decision, after very wide advertising to the community: multiple RM centred on Collins Street, Melbourne. (But I strongly disagree with the justification given in the closing decision, which ignores the groundswell of sound reasoning in the comments.) NoeticaTea? 01:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Care to show how that unargued assertion is adequate, in the face of my analyses above? See especially my long response responses to BDD. NoeticaTea? 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, frankly, I find your "analysis" unconvincing and out of step with policy as well as common practice. I fundamentally disagree with your argument that parentheticals should be used for purposes beyond disambiguation, in cases (like this) where disambiguation isn't necessary. The end of the line is that the statistics suggest the vast majority of readers typing in or clicking on "Go Now" are looking for this song. As such, putting this article at that title will get the greatest number of our readers where they want to go in the quickest fashion.Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which completely sidesteps my forceful and detailed argument, and presents new unargued assertions instead. O well. A free world! ♥ NoeticaTea? 21:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it refutes your argument rather nicely. Cúchullain t/c 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O good! Now, please show how. ☺ NoeticaTea? 04:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already done, immediately above. You can stop bludgeoning any time now.--Cúchullain t/c 13:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One article or the other should be primary, per WP:TWODABS. The article on the song gets 4.8 times more page views than the one on the film. (11067 / 2299) So which of these two articles should be primary is not a head scratcher. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject as it is commonly given in published sources. The advocates of baroque titling need to be reminded that titles are attached to articles, which is the proper place to detail the parameters of the subject. Let's not play the SEO game, unless we want to revise our titling system every time Google tweeks its algorithm. Kauffner (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a misreading of the guideline WP:TWODABS. It says this (my underlining):

If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.

Whether one article is in fact primary is not addressed at TWODABS.
As for your statistics to support primary status for the present article, note:
  • Statistics are only a part of the story. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC mentions preponderance in pageviews descriptively, as one consideration often appealed to in RM discussions.
  • Your figures do not indicate (nor could they) how many people do not find the article about the film, because it has only the bare and ambiguous title "Go Now".
You do not address the cogent and detailed lines of reasoning I present above, and you do not show how readers would be worse off with the alternative that I propose (adequate, short, simple precision for both articles). How could they be? Please explain – without politics, without unargued appeals to misread guidelines, and without spurious appeals to unanalysed statistics.
NoeticaTea? 02:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems to be a clear case of the song being the primary topic. Incidentally, I am a little confused by Noetica's Google search. When I input Wikipedia and "Go Now" I get (1) "Go Now (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Go Now" is a song composed by Larry Banks and Milton Bennett. It was first recorded in 1964 by Bessie Banks, and most successfully by The Moody Blues", and (2) "Go Now - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Go Now is a 1995 television film directed by Michael Winterbottom and starring Robert Carlyle as an MS-afflicted soccer player/construction worker struggling ..." I have to say that here in the United Kingdom, from where both the song and the film emanate, the song is extremely well known, having reached number one for The Moody Blues on the British charts (their biggest hit), while the TV film, despite starring Robert Carlyle and winning the Prix Europa, is practically unknown. To Richhoncho, who considers that the song's popularity is "transient", I would point out that it was a hit 48 years ago! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2013 (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 2 external links on Go Now. 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, 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) 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Producer

[edit]

Shouldn't the producer of the MB-version be Alex Murray as stated in the label, Alex Murray was manager of the MB at the time,Ceescamel (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Go_Now&oldid=1202335739"