Jump to content

Talk:Lovin' You

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Lovin' You (Shanice single).JPG

[edit]

Image:Lovin' You (Shanice single).JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

'MINNIE RIPPERTON (RIPERTON) & RICHARD RUDOLPH 'COVERED LOVING YOU, by THE SINGER-SONGWRITER OF'''' LOVING YOU SANG IN 1971 THOMAS J MITCHELL.


THE ORIGIN OF LOVING YOU 1971.

In the 1971 concert the people in the audience waited for Thomas (escorted by his mother) to come into the assembly hall. When he came in he was shown where to stand, Angela Collins told the audience (seated adults) to quiet down, the place became silent, Mark Collins approached the piano which was in the assembly hall, birds started to chirp and then the scene was set for Angela (music teacher) to accompany, Thomas to sing and Mark to start playing the piano. That same year (1971) Thomas went to the Caribbean with his parent`s to live and attend school.

Child Star, Singer-Songwriter Thomas J Mitchell, Who at the age of 9 wrote and sang professionally (the song Loving You) younger than the late and the great, artist`s like Chuck Berry,Elvis Presley,Diana Ross,James Brown,Stevie Wonder,Bob Marley,Micheal Jackson,Paul McCartney,Mick Jagger to name a few. He went Platinum at the age of 12 in 1974 unknown to the world & music fan`s.


Loving you was first sang in 1971 by a Child Star aged nine (9) Thomas J Mitchell . Loving You has since been covered consantly by the likes of Minnie Ripperton, Janet Kay, Shanice, Tracy and Massivo and Leona Lewis to name a few artists. The Official Web Site will be out in the near future. Loving You (1971) Child Star, Singer-Songwriter Thomas J Mitchell, Accompanied by (once a Infant School Teacher at Hartley Infant & Junior, East Ham E6) Mrs Angela Collins Director & Choreograph at Plymouth Theatre Company, Piano music composed and played by Teen Star Mark Collins. Music published by Campbell and Connelly Co Ltd London and the Original and First recording of Loving You (1971), video, merchandise and memorabilia will be out in the near futute.

The song LOVING YOU was Not first sang by Minnie Ripperton it was first Covered by her and the Lead instrument was Not played by Richard Rudolph on a guitar ,the lead instrument is a Piano. When you listen to the song think of Spring Because Spring is what we was singing and playing about.

Listen to the Unmistakable Voice of a Boy when you start to hear LOVING YOU the Original Song (CBS MILLION SELLER and CBS NIGHTFLIGHT) Bird`s, a Boy on the Piano and a Boy`s Voice Singing and a tuning fork. The piano was a up-right school piano

The First Afro-Caribbean, Black British Child Star in Pop, R&B Music. The First Afro-Caribbean, Black British Child Star with his Song played on the Radio. The First Afro-Caribbean, Black British Child-Star with his Song played on the Television. The First Afro-Caribbean, Black British Child Star with his song/record on Vinyl. The First Afro-Caribbean, Black British Child Star with his song/record on Cassette.

For More info GOOGLE: Thomas J Mitchell Loving You (1971) Fan Club Link http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=7585743066 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.88.40 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's love or romance song?

[edit]

So is this song about a mother's love for her baby/young child or is it a standard woman/man romance song? I always thought the latter, but now I'm thinking it's the former? When the lyrics says "Every time that we ooo-ooo, I'm more in love with you" maybe that actually means a mother cuddling her baby, whereas I always thought, you know... 5Q5 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having read the lyrics offsite I see they contain "And making love with you is all I wanna do" so I guess I have to retract my, now stupid seeming, question above. In my defense, however, I note that as of this writing, the article contains no lyrics, does not mention what type of song it is, and prominently discusses how the melody was written as a distraction for Ripperton's 2-1/2 year-old daughter, whose name is spoken at the end of the song. 5Q5 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move I

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

The result of the move request was: page moved, primary topic by usage, both before the recent technical request page move and after (200+ hits per days, vs. 20 or fewer for any of the others). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) → Lovin' You – This article was recently moved as an uncontroversial move. However, it would seem to be primary per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it is much more likely sought than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. I'm not exactly sure how the recent move affects page view stats, particularly with regard to the high numbers for Lovin' You, which is now a redirect page, but here they are:

Lovin' You has been viewed 23288 times in the last 90 days.
Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) has been viewed 6442 times in the last 90 days.
Lovin' You (TVXQ song) has been viewed 859 times in the last 90 days.
Lovin' You (The O'Jays song) has been viewed 476 times in the last 90 days.
Lovin' You (Kristine W song) has been viewed 360 times in the last 90 days.
Lovin' You (S.E.S. song) has been viewed 212 times in the last 90 days.

The high numbers for the redirect page would seem to be artificial, reflecting its recent location as that of the Minnie Riperton song article, but observe that no page has been viewed any where near as often as even Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song). Note that a move request is pending at Loving You (disambiguation), and additional stats are available there, but I don't think that they are salient to this case, since this regards "Lovin' You", where readers have searched with an apostrophe and no g. ENeville (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Not everyone knows Minnie Riperton song. I even recently begin to realize that this song has existed for years. I'm not sure how the song follows the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nevertheless, the numbers within the last 90 days are less relevant, as Lovin' You would be also referred to Elvis Presley, especially since Elvis Presley has deep voice, and I don't know how he pronounced "loving" while he sang. "Lovin' You" is ambiguous somehow, as I presumed that Gloria Estefan, Celine Dion, or any rap, hip-hop, or R&B singer sings this. I haven't been familiar with Minnie Riperton until now; I'm sure that general readers do not know her at this time, even with Wikipedia.
I don't know why Loving You and Lovin' You should be treated differently; to me, they are ambiguous to each other, not different from each other, aside from modifications. Besides, I already created Lovin' You (Elvis Presley song) and Lovin' You (1957 film), just in case.
If this song follows the guideline, then the guideline is a failure for "Lovin' You" and "Loving You" themselves, as they are both equally searchable in Google and Bing. If the guideline is not a failure, then the Minnie Riperton song itself is not primary, regardless of popularity, as other titles contain the phrase "loving you" or lovin' you. This month, after change on April 11 or 12, 2012, the redirect "Lovin' You" receives 685 views; the numbers for the Elvis Presley film are confusing, as numbers include some people who want to search elsewhere, such as the Minnie Riperton song or the Elvis Presley song, such as the dab page; the Minnie Riperton song is popular, but the popularity does not imply good chance to be a primary topic. --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this appears to be the clear primary topic for this particular spelling. Powers T 15:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particular spelling of "loving" (or "lovin'") is, to me, a flimsy reason to move it. It's not exactly like red meat or Red Meat. "Lovin' You" may be perceived as an interpretation of a non-sophisicated person's pronunciation of "loving you", so I presumed either a rap or R&B artist or Elvis Presley. How are they not ambiguous? --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a close one for sure. Certainly a judgement call, and anyone who claims that one way or the other is clearly correct is probably mistaken. I just happen to come down on the side that someone going to the trouble of typing the apostrophe is likely looking for this song. Powers T 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... good question. I wonder myself... until I figured that either WP:Article titles or WP:Disambiguation doesn't mention about modifications. Oh wait: I think I have a reason: M*A*S*H and MASH; Fathers' Day and Father's Day... Maybe vague examples, but I'm getting there. Then again, I found Something Stupid and Somethin' Stupid, but there are only two topics; nevertheless, both are too ambiguous, but at least I created Something Stupid (song) recently. Somethin' Else is a redirect to Something Else, and there are more than one with one title and more than one with the other. Maybe that would change your mind. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is "Holdin'", but that's the only existing topic in Wikipedia, as there is Holding. No other topics use "Holdin'". This becomes different from "Lovin' You" and "Somethin' Else". --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion II

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus after 37 days, no discussion since 13 days ago. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' You → Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) – The previous discussion was closed as moved based on statistics and interpretations of statistics. However, there are concerns over the song's qualifications as the "primary topic". Nevertheless, I haven't considered, in the previous discussion, that, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "there is no single criterion for defining a primary topic". In fact, two criteria were used: long-term significance and usage.

As I pointed before, usage criteria is totally vague, even when it is spelled "Lovin' You" without the 'g'. WP:PRECISION can distinct two names as two topics with various capitalizations, punctuations, spacing, and other modifications. However, I don't even know "Lovin' You" is also the Minnie Riperton song, as I confused the title as anything related to Elvis Presley or a catchy song of someone else.

Which brings me statistics. The Minnie Riperton song in the last 90 days is a popular search term. Meanwhile, The O'Jays song, Japanese song, Kristine W song, and TVXQ song are the least searchables. However, which brings me one question: how familiar is the Minnie Riperton song? Do they have to know Minnie Riperton song of all titles with the same name, "Lovin' You"? George Ho (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long-term significance: Is this song well-remembering for years to come, like 20 or 30 years?
  • Usage (titling): Before I recognize Minnie Riperton, I thought the spelling looked like an obscure 1990s R&B song or the 1920s Charleston song. After that, I'm concerned over the title's status as "primary topic" over usage.
  • Familiarity: Many other singers sing this song as a sing-along. That doesn't implicate primacy of this song. In fact, who else here is familiar with this song? Who else outside Wikipedia is familiar with this song?
  • Impact of this topic: Seriously, after hearing this song, it keeps singing in my head, especially with the la-la-las. It's catchy and relaxing. It is just ordinary and creative, but that's it. How have been the reviews?
  • Popularity: 200 or 300 views per day average. However, while decent, I don't know which other song passes 2000 or 3000 views per day. Thriller (song) is viewed 500-600 times per day, but I was hoping 2000.
  • (Dis)ambiguity: Something Else and Somethin' Else would have been two different topics because of different names per WP:PRECISION, but things turn out otherwise. How would "Loving You" and "Lovin' You" be just, respectively, of Elvis Presley and of Minnie Riperton is beyond me. In fact, there are other topics with either of similar names, even when not popular.

I could go on forever, but my mind is almost exhausted. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support by a very practical reason - the disambiguation page did already have a primary topic, and thus the previous move created a disambiguation page with two primary topics, which is against the guideline. This should be corrected somehow - and both solutions (no primary topic or Elvis as primary) require that this song is moved to a title with parentheses. Diego (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking at a different disambiguation page. "Loving You" vs. "Lovin' You". Those two titles may have different primary topics, and did until the supposedly technical request was carried out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Appearances can be deceiving" or "do not judge the book by its cover". What did you think "Loving You" was before you found out it was of an Elvis Presley film or song or album? What did you think "Lovin' You" was before Minnie Riperton? --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating my !vote now that Loving You is no longer primary topic. I still support this move, since the Elvis song, the Elvis film and this song all are reasonable topics for the ambiguous title ("Lovin' You" and "Loving You" are definitely ambiguous to each other). Diego (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per all the discussion we just got through only days ago in the section immediately above. ENeville (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the song's popularity help the song meet both criteria (usage and long-term significance) and other criteria that I mentioned? There is nothing, as far as I know, significant in a long term about this song. Reviews can say it's good or bad and impactful enough for singers to cover this song, but that doesn't change my views of opposing this song as "primary". I reviewed the previous discussion, and somehow I wonder if 200 or 300 views per day proves that people are searching for this song with that apostrophe or this song is primary of all topics with the similar spelling, even when each other topic is viewed 5 to 20 times per day. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per above. And just because the spelling is slightly different from Elvis Presley's version, this version by Minnie Riperton is not what I would have expected to be brought to. -Laniala (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. Not good form to just start a new RM if the old one gives a result you don't like. Consensus can change, but I don't see why it would have in the space of a day. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem! See WP:requested moves/Closure review. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, how about Talk:It's Great to Be Alive? That was one month after the first request was reached, and the second consensus finally was reached to "moved". --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What is your point about proposed closure review process? If you think that means there is nowhere for closures to be reviewed at the moment, you are incorrect; any type of admin decision can always be reviewed at WP:AN. The "It's Great to Be Alive" discussion is in no way similar to this; the original RM there was closed "no consensus", so of course after waiting a suitable amount of time it's OK to renominate to try and find consensus (although, unless you have some considerably different arguments, I would say one month is about the minimum time you should wait), but with this discussion there was consensus and you renominated within 24 hours. Jenks24 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this discussion has been kept alive right after the previous one, it means than the first move did not have consensus and should not have been performed; it should be thus overridden as there never was enough support for the move. When a discussion is closed as consensus and most people in it keep arguing the same points, it means that the closure was not a real consensus - the closing did not reflect the overall status of the discussion. In this case it was a hastened one, only 7 days after the discussion began. Move I is not a consensus that can change, is a situation where consensus didn't happen. Diego (talk)
I did discuss the previous discussion of this to Anthony Appleyard. Well, he discussed this in WT:RM. JHunterJ has no intentions to re-open it; I opened it within one day, and you see two other supporters of this proposal. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close; we just went through this. Just leave it alone; the future of the wiki is not at stake here. Powers T 20:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection to the suggestion for a speedy close. The previous RM drew very few votes, rested on suspect interpretation of questionable evidence, and was closed by an admin who clearly favours conciseness over precision – even when that precision can be shown to help readers. He himself has drafted such a provision, and inserted it as a guideline with little evidence of consensus through discussion, and no wide consultation. That needs addressing. Let this fresh RM continue. NoeticaTea? 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as clearly in the interests of most readers who would come anywhere near this cluster of confusable topics – mechanistic appeals to the deeply contested and increasingly pernicious doctrine of "primary topic" notwithstanding.
    ♥♪☺♫ NoeticaTea? 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – however, a better case would be made via a multiple-RM to fix Luvin' You at the same time. Too much ambiguity all around; you don't do the reader any favors by signalling topic distinctions with a mere apostrophe or single-letter misspelling. I think JHunterJ usually does a great job closing RMs, but he has recently been taking a strong position on one side of a contentious open debate about PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:D, so I think it would be best if he would avoid being the closer on things like this that he is partisan on. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "partisan on", I say "familiar with the WP policies and guidelines around". I don't think admins who are familiar with a particular corner of WP should avoid RMs in that corner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more criterion in favor of supporting this "so-called rushed" proposal: interests on this topic: Clearly, the article is a mess, and anyone interested in this song would have enough brains and guts to clean out crap and include more relevant stuff per WP:SONGS. Even with 200 or 300 views per day, is anybody interested with this topic overall? Is anybody interested in cleaning the hell up an article about this very old song? --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the just-closed RM above, and the convenience of most of the readers reaching this page over the much smaller inconvenience of the smaller number of readers looking for something else. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did not demonstrate, nor do you demonstrate now, that the proposed title would diminish the overall utility and convenience for readers. Just saying it does not demonstrate it. We need to move beyond simplistic application of tired old rules that don't make contact with the real world. NoeticaTea? 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a bit of the pot calling the kettle "black", isn't it, Noetica? You've never demonstrated, or even attempted to demonstrate that I recall, that unnecessarily disambiguated titles improve the encyclopedia in any concrete way for its readers, merely asserted that it's obvious. Like above: the move is "clearly in the interests of most readers". Well, that's your opinion, but until you've made an attempt to demonstrate its veracity, you have little ground on which to criticize JHunterJ for not making an attempt to demonstrate otherwise. Powers T 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You immediately show that you are thinking in a rut, when you put it that way. "Unnecessarily disambiguated titles"? There could hardly be a clearer example of begging the question. We do not make progress if we assume from the start what is to be demonstrated; and we preclude rational discussion if we demand that others disprove what we take as an axiom. JHJ took something to be proven that obviously was not. I pointed that out; you focus not on the allegation, but on an impossible task that you set for someone who disagrees with your axiom. Stay in that tight circle, by all means. But you can have no rational objection to those who refuse to stay in it with you. NoeticaTea? 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was aware of the question-begging but chose to use the terminology anyway because there's no other concise way to describe the titles you favor. My point remains, regardless of the terminology I used -- and you again failed to address it and instead addressed my thought processes and the manner in which I communicate. It is unfair for you to demand a demonstration of utility to readers for JHunterJ's position while refusing to provide that demonstration for your own. Powers T 14:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • A brief pause for thought would show that there is another concise and non-polemic way to describe the titles I prefer: not "unnecessarily disambiguated titles", but "titles that are helpfully precise". That is a neutral description, in fact. Does anyone deny that the controversial precision in "Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)" is helpful? I hope not. Does anyone claim that including "(Minnie Riperton song)" is a hindrance to any reader, anywhere? I hope not. Some might say that its helpfulness is outweighed by other considerations; and that is what we can assess here. That, I had thought, is why we have RM discussions. But to invoke abstract rules without keeping an eye on helping readers to navigate to what they want is plain stupidity – of the most pernicious sort, because it is extremely bright people who fall victim to it. Because it it so pernicious, I consistently stand against it.
              ♥♪ NoeticaTea? 00:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are apparently blind to your own polemicism if you think "titles that are helpfully precise" is perfectly neutral. You have yet to provide evidence parallel to what you demand from JHunterJ, evidence that the longer titles are "clearly in the interests of most readers". But even if I were to stipulate that "Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song)" is more helpful, wouldn't "Lovin' You (1975 Minnie Riperton song)" be even more helpful? Wouldn't "Lovin' You (1975 Minnie Riperton and Richard Rudolph song)" be more helpful yet? Once we've decided that disambiguation beyond the minimum is desirable, how do we know where to stop? Powers T 02:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • O really? First, whether you think a particular title is helpfully precise or not, that is clearly identifiable as my primary concern for titles, is it not? And to identify my concern as that is clearly non-polemical, is it not? Then, moving on: You deny that the addition of "(Minnie Riperton song)" is helpful to some readers, and harmful to none? I had thought that would be conceded by everyone. What do you deny exactly: that it would be helpful to some, or that it would be harmful to none? Is it the helpfulness (hypothetical, if you like) that you take as controversial in this discussion, or something else? If something else, what exactly? This is important for understanding what's going on here, because if you concede that the precision is helpful, then you will have a job explaining how it is not "clearly in the interests of most readers", right?
                  You ask whether "Lovin' You (1975 Minnie Riperton and Richard Rudolph song)" wouldn't be more helpful, by my lights (perhaps attempting a reductio). My answer, no. It goes too far, with wordiness that adds little utility. There is only one song in the universe picked out by Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song), so that title is sufficiently precise. It is certainly also informative (which can be no objection to it). I would have no problem adding a redirect from Lovin' You (Richard Rudolph and Minnie Riperton song) (which would come up nicely as a prompt if someone typed in "lovin you ri..." progressively), or any number of other redirects.
                  So your attempted reductio fails. All I would want, and all that readers in quest of this song would want, is that it be uniquely distinguished from confusable topics. Right up front, with its own eminently suitable title. If they lack the information that the song that interests them is sung by, or co-written by, Minnie Ripperton, then they will be well served by a DAB page called Lovin' You (itself drawing hits from suitable redirects like Luvin' you, or whatever). You ask: "Once we've decided that disambiguation beyond the minimum is desirable, how do we know where to stop?" Depends what you mean by "minimum". Lovin' You is not only uninformative to many people (which you might or might not care about), it is also ambiguous even for those who know all of the uses to which the expression (along with its many variants) is put. I have shown where I would stop, and I have shown on what rational grounds.
                  NoeticaTea? 05:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC) ☺[reply]
You voted in the last RM, and nomination counts as a vote. So this is a third vote. Anyway, I'm sure the closer can figure it all out. Kauffner (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, the admin can figure this is a double vote. --George Ho (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion II: part 2

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

400th No 1?

[edit]

It was me who just requested citation on the claim that this was the 400th Billboard No 1. My count of the Hot 100 indicates that it was only the 362nd if returns to number one are not counted and still less than 400 if they are.

Mix magazine article about the song

[edit]

I found this great article from Mix magazine about Lovin' You. I already incorporated it into the article to verify the roles of Stevie Wonder and Richard Rudolph (Riperton's widower) on the album. But if anyone would like to use the source to add more content to the article, that would be great. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move? (3)

[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: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' You → Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) – And then redirect Lovin' You to disambig page Loving You. Is this Minnie Riperton song a primary meaning any more? Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most all music is consumed/accessed/purchased online these days. And as Gregkaye mentions, Search: "Lovin' You" gives refs to this song. There is also an Alicia Keys' song, Lovin U, but that song doesn't even get a mention on her page. See also: Lovin' You#Other cover versions. There are also poems with the text Lovin' you but I consider the proposed change to be a stretch. The main other other contender is Lovin' You (The O'Jays song) but "Lovin' You" "O'Jays" gets "About 50,600 results" while "Lovin' You" "Minnie Riperton" gets "About 250,000 results". Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
' or g isn't the issue here. Primary Topic does not naturally apply to songs and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) requires songs be disambiguated even if 1 is more popular. We have articles for 5 songs Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song), Lovin' You (Kristine W song), Lovin' You (S.E.S. song), Lovin' You (The O'Jays song), Lovin' You (TVXQ song). Each of these 5 songs has 5 different sets of readers; it isn't a case of Paris vs Paris, Texas where cities are divided by music genre. Which is why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) indicates adding the artist name, or why have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) at all if we don't follow it. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please quote directly where "Primary Topic does not naturally apply to songs" and where "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) requires songs be disambiguated even if 1 is more popular", and where "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) indicates adding the artist name" and where we "don't follow" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)? Also, remember that even Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) is a guideline, not a policy, best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply — but if you are going to refer to it, please use direct quotes. Also, what do you mean by "it isn't a case of Paris vs Paris, Texas where cities are divided by music genre"? Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As always, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) does not "require" adding unnecessary disambiguation when there's a primary topic, as there is here. And even if it did, a sub-guideline can't override the project-wide consensus behind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Lovin' You has several times the page views of all the other topics combined. It got (14,640 views in the last 90 days, compared to 822 for Lovin' You (TVXQ song), 595 for Lovin' You (The O'Jays song), 391 for Lovin' You (Kristine W song), 267 for Lovin' You (S.E.S. song). When a clear majority readers are looking for one topic, there's no sense in throwing roadblocks in front of them.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does contain any compunction. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. As there is no compunction, there is no reason why any project shouldn't eschew PT for other considerations (which is permitted by WP:AT). Primarytopic also mentions "consensus" and there is a consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) which says, quite rightly, and for extremely valid reasons related to, inter alia, the age of the reader, the ear of the reader, the genre preferences of the reader, the nationality of the reader, the sex of the reader, the re-use of titles (as in this instance). --Richhoncho (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is clear: this is far and away the thing readers are looking for with this title.--Cúchullain t/c 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is clear: that you care not a hoot for the **consensus** reached many years ago and contained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). --Richhoncho (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in one Wikiproject "cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You would be correct if there was compunction to apply primary topic, but there isn't so you are wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The evidence is clear: this is far and away the thing readers are looking for with this title"--Cúchullain t/c 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah repetition. I can recommend primary topic. Please pay attention to bias in statistics and the fact it is not only just a guideline, but it is non-compulsory, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) is just a sub-guideline, which further doesn't recommend ignoring decisive evidence or universally accepted practice.--Cúchullain t/c 19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attributing non-existent statements to guidelines - they are there for everybody to read... You obviously didn't read the close of this song, a quick look at this discussion, along with many many other music RM discussions will show that consensus is not with you. Please also read WP:SONGDAB where you consistently apply meanings that are not in that guideline. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it many times, without reading my own preferences into it, and it in fact does not say to ignore decisive evidence or universally accepted practice.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. You have indeed read it, "reading my own preferences into it" because nobody else is fooled. You have turned a voluntary guideline that relies on consensus into compulsory and turned a project specific guideline on its head. More Houdini than a WP editor? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, just someone who prefers responding to what readers are actually doing based on evidence, rather than forcing them to do what I want based on assumption. You should try it some time.--Cúchullain t/c 23:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I shall take your inability to rebut my statement that there is no compunction in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as an oblique acknowledgement that I am correct. This is further confirmed by your inability to make anything but broad meaningless sweeping statements. I have no objection to you wishing that we establish PT for all subjects (even though I fundamentally disagree in respect of commercial titles), but I do have a problem with you misquoting guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My stance, and the guidelines and evidence, should be sufficiently clear at this point.--Cúchullain t/c 13:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Your stance/opinion is clear. Both guidelines are clear. Shame the opinion and the guidelines don't converge. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the apostrophe versus g is no how a wonderful distinction, and given that we have some other things that use that exactly, we need a case for primary for that, and that it seems to me is pretty weak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.54 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2014 (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 Lovin' You. 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) 22:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lovin' You. 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) 13:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

[edit]

Placing these items here which were formerly under the section "Uses in popular culture". If reliable sources can be found for any of these items, please add the item + reference back into the article. (5 items were originally removed.)

Thanks! Big universe (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lovin%27_You&oldid=1208601367"