Talk:Mantra (Dave Grohl song)

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: reject: no consensus in 44 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This move was requested as uncontroversial thus:-
- Since there are no other song articles named "Mantra", further disambiguation should be avoided per WP:DABSONG. – Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But at 02:14, 29 November 2013‎ User:In ictu oculi moved Mantra (song) to Mantra (Dave Grohl song) with the move comment "a mantra is often sung and is a song". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I hold that (song) alone does not disambiguate from the primary topic meaning, the Vedic original. Although mantras can simply be spoken, they are often sung: "sing a mantra" "singing a mantra", "sang a mantra" etc. (That's before usual pop-song dab issues such as the dab page showing "Mantra", a song by Tool from their 2001 album Lateralus... And I have further added to Mantra_(disambiguation)#Songs the 1969 King Crimson song "Mantra" and 2005 song by Anggun, but that shouldn't even be necessary given the primary meaning of mantra.) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IIO, mantra can be sung, therefore can be considered a song by people searching for it, so it should redirec to the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm convinced by In ictu oculi's statement, I think there is another issue related to this disambiguation. Since the song is credited to three people rather than simply Dave Grohl, can an alternative to Mantra (Dave Grohl song) be found? There are examples of disambiguated with the names of two people (such as Don't Give Up (Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush song)) but this situation seems to be unique. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could have Mantra (Dave Grohl, Josh Homme and Trent Reznor song) or (Grohl, Homme and Reznor song). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one sounds like a good alternative (although it is kind of long); the latter one is somewhat ambiguous. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Mantra (Sound City song)" using the name of the documentary/album? Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Mantra (Sound City soundtrack)"? More wp:precise and as wp:concise as "song". ^walk victor falk^talk 03:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes it sound like Sound City had a soundtrack called Mantra. (Soundtracks often have the same names as their films, but this isn't always the case.) --BDD (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I support the Mantra (''Sound City'' song) option proposed by Dralwik; it is also soothingly alliterative. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems fine to me. I also support. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this suggestion also. Xoloz (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the new title would be "Mantra (Sound City song)" as the italics are by means of a transcribed template on the new page. I support this. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is the only song called "Mantra" that has any sort of notability demonstrated right now. Mantra (song) is an unlikely search term for Mantra. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed title. This is the only song called "Mantra", so the more concise disambiguation is preferable. Second, as BDD says, Mantra (song) isn't a likely search term for Mantra (or any other topic). Third, as has been pointed out, the current title is inaccurate since this isn't a "Dave Grohl song" as Homme and Reznor are also there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move back to Mantra (song for the reasons stated by iio. Because we can, does not mean we must do our best to confuse readers. Would not oppose move to either of the proposed alternative names. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The argument that a mantra may be sung is a weak one at best. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi. When seeing the title or search term "Mantra (song)", my immediate response is to expect an article on the singing of mantras, as opposed to their spoken repetition. Contra BDD, I hold that the singing of mantras is a practice well documented in religious and anthropological literature, far more than the documentation than would be expected for one song, however popular it may be. Xoloz (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you'd really expect such a topic at Mantra (song), as opposed to Sung mantra, Mantras in song, etc.? --BDD (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Mantra (song)" might not be the ideal title for such an article; but, as you know, many Wikipedia articles exist at titles that are less than ideal. Experience here has taught me that, when considering article titles, it is wise to expect anything! :) What I can say in all seriousness is that I believe a person searching for Mantra (song) is at least as likely to be looking for sung mantras as for any particular popular song. Xoloz (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting one, really comes down to whether you believe "Mantra (song)" would refer to a "sung mantra". Personally I think it unlikely in the extreme and on the off chance that anyone is does come to the article with that in mind a hatnote would deal with the problem. Also the proposed title has the added bonus of nullifying the debate about whether all three of the singers should be included in the title. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jenks24, I for one thought Mantra (song) referred to a sung mantra, perhaps due to having been in a Buddhist monastery and having sung one (and my experience happens to be supported by the use in Google Books) wheras I didn't expect Mantra (Sound City song) and was WP:ASTONISHed. But that isn't really the question, the question is what advantage is it to readers to ambiguously disambiguate titles contrary to WP:CRITERIA when a clear title is available? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's interesting because it's so subjective. I think you would be one of the few outliers who would expect a sung mantra article. As to it being contrary to WP:CRITERIA, I completely disagree – four our of the five would criteria would actually be encouraging this move. And more importantly than all that, the current title is completely inadequate because it's inaccurate. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24, I do not think it is at all fair to call (Dave Grohl song) "completely inadequate because it's inaccurate" when The Rolling Stone article is titled Dave Grohl's Sound City Players Pound Out 'Mantra' in the Studio - Premiere. If we have Dave Grohl singing Dave Grohl vocals on a Dave Grohl written track on a Dave Grohl album to a Dave Grohl film to call it {Dave Grohl song) is not "completely inadequate because it's inaccurate", any more than the Rolling Stone article title "completely inadequate because it's inaccurate". The fact that each album track is a jam with different guest musicians doesn't make this an equally weighted song and when the film/album/song/vocals are all by Dave Grohl, ...

User:Xoloz User:Richhoncho User:Myxomatosis57 User:Dralwik user:victor falk as those who support more than mantra (song), perhaps we are being too complicated here. Given that it is just an album track (not even a single) on a Dave Grohl album, can we not treat it just as we would treat a similar (Paul McCartney song) without the guest performers for an album track where film/album/song/vocals are all by Paul McCartney? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No because this is still not a solo Dave Grohl effort of all sorts. (If the Dave Grohl was credited as the main artist on the album, I'd have agreed with you. However, there are only writing credits, which makes the soundtrack "a various artists" effort somehow.) Mantra (Sound City Players song) is another option, citing that Rolling Stone article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that there is consensus against Mantra (song) but no discernible consensus exactly where the article should be. With that in mind perhaps this RM should be closed as not moved with an option to open a new RM if anybody has another suggestion? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Given that proposer no longer supports RM] I do not think another RM would be required if this closes at "not moved", no one has seriously objected to User:Myxomatosis57's solution Mantra (Sound City Players song) ...Myxomatosis57 could move it and the rest of us could just click "thank"... it is awkward that this is an album track and the album is a soundtrack with the band not indicated on the cover http://www.allmusic.com/song/mantra-mt0046441144 I am more concerned with the confusion with the primary meaning of mantra, which is often sung, hence the dozens of songs and instrumental pieces named "Mantra". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, another RM would not be required under the circumstances I alluded to. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Request close}}

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.