Jump to content

Talk:Never Gonna Dance Again (Sugababes song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleNever Gonna Dance Again (Sugababes song) was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed
March 18, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 7, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that critics compared the Sugababes' 2007 song "Never Gonna Dance Again" to "Careless Whisper" by George Michael?
Current status: Delisted good article

Was it really written for Change?

[edit]

Something about that articel is just wrong imo. It says that this song was written for the album Change, but the source for this claim is the Wikipedia article about Change (which is the first thing that is very wrong - I always thought you should prove everything with a reliable source, and Wikipedia pages are usually not really reliable or rather not suitable as a source). What makes me suspicious is the following sentence (taken from the Wikipedia page of Change): "Although, it was Amelle's first production, many of the songs from the album were tracks that did not appear on Taller In More Ways." I've heard that very often and I also think that this is true, but do you have a reliable proof for this? I think it's a fact that some of the tracks on Change are leftovers from Taller. I heard rumors that there would be a version of Never Gonna Dance Again with Mutyas vocals on it. So basically I think all tracks written solely by Keisha and Heidi are leftovers from Taller and it's wrong to say that this song was written for the album Change (because obviously it was written for another album). Could someone please proof this, or delete it if you don't find a reliable source (for both articles)?--Martina2504 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Sorry for my bad english, I'm a german Sugababes fan ;)![reply]

Requested move 12 January 2017

[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: procedural close. This article is to be merged into its album (non-admin closure). feminist 08:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Never Gonna Dance Again (song) → Never Gonna Dance Again – Is anyone seriously gonna mistake this for Careless Whisper? Unreal7 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I realize that consistency with other pages isn't enough reason to support. Therefore, I would say that the titles are precise and concise enough to distinguish the two songs. We must do what's best for readers. Too much disambiguation would annoy readers. Also, the hatnote is sufficient to help readers surf to either page. Would that suffice? --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must rescind my vote. I can't re-vote while the merger is ongoing with two supports. --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Only article with this title; the differently titled George Michael song is already distinguished with a hat note. There's also the matter that "(song)" doesn't actually distinguish the subject from Careless Whisper, which is also a song.--Cúchullain t/c 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and relisting. Target should be a primary redirect to Careless Whisper. But agree that current disambiguation is inadequate. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while I agree with SMcCandlish that the DAB is needless per WP:TWODABS, I also agree with Andrewa that "Never Gonna Dance Again" should be a primary redirect to George Michael's "Careless Whisper". This song honestly doesn't meet WP:NSONGS (no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews) and should just redirect to its album article. Whether this was released as a single or not is irrelevant. Even if this did warrant an article, people much more often think of the George Michael song when they hear this phrase. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I almost closed this as strong consensus to move.... but it didn't sit right. Maybe it's a lost cause, but...

User:SMcCandlish, I also thought of Careless Whisper, in fact needed to do a Google to even find mention of the other song. Doesn't this suggest at least consider a primary redirect? Deck the Halls doesn't seem a close parallel.

User:In ictu oculi, good question which nobody took up.

User:George Ho, again, are these really parallels?

User:Cuchullain, good points, but how about a primary redirect? And further disambiguate this song?

You four are an awesome jury on RMs, so I'm walking into a lion's den. Just want to throw in this possibility. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrewa. I just don't see much evidence that Careless Whisper is a good WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT candidate. The real lyric is "I'm Never Gonna Dance Again". Even if "I'm Never Gonna Dance Again" were its actual title, we still would have the Sugababes song as "Never Gonna Dance Again" per WP:SMALLDETAILS, so long as appropriate hat notes were in place.--Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 200,000 ghits for "never gonna dance again" and the first few pages are all about the George Michael song, while take out "George Michael" and it drops to less than half that, so by usage Careless Whisper may just scrape in. But by significance it's a clearer winner, the Sugababes song didn't chart and had mixed reviews, the George Michael song hit #1 in several countries, and went platinum or better in five. Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that WP:SMALLDETAILS helps... Certainly I'm Never Gonna Dance Again should redirect to Careless Whisper, but that doesn't tell us anything about where Never Gonna Dance Again should point. Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt "Careless Whisper" is a more significant song, but I see no evidence that people are typing in or clicking on the phrase "Never Gonna Dance Again" looking for it, at least not more people than are using that search term looking for this song actually titled "Never Gonna Dance Again". No one would ever have created this as a redirect to "Careless Whisper" if the Sugababes song didn't have an article; even the actual lyric, "I'm Never Gonna Dance Again, didn't exist as a redirect until 2013). The hatnote will serve anyone who's actually confused just as effectively, and in just as few clicks, as a dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 03:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's impossible to tell whether people are typing in or clicking on the phrase "Never Gonna Dance Again" looking for it, at least not more people than are using that search term looking for this song actually titled "Never Gonna Dance Again". Or even to tell whether No one would ever have created this as a redirect to "Careless Whisper" if the Sugababes song didn't have an article....
If I heard the GM song for the first time and liked it, never gonna dance again is probably exactly what I'd type in to Google. And if, having found it in Wikipedia, and listened to it on youtube, (which Google finds easily) I wanted to make it easier for others to find, that's exactly the redir I might create.
I would have created one recently for Red in the Night (song) or similar if we had an article for Red Sky at Night (The Accent song) or even for The Accent... see Talk:Red sky at night. The words Red Sky don't actually appear anywhere in the song, and I recently achieved a personal ambition by finally identifying the song, which received a lot of airplay in Aust and was formative for a lot of Australian guitarists, including both famous ones and not-so-famous ones like me. But it was just a memory, and it has not been easy to track down.
Anyway, point being, shouldn't we go with the long-term significance criterion, which is quite clear-cut? Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about "Red in the Night".
Obviously, people searching for a song titled "Never Gonna Dance Again" will search for it under its title. It's an open question whether they search for a song titled "Careless Whisper" using that phrase. Based on the page views, it doesn't look like it, nor do they seem to have trouble finding "Careless Whisper" where it is (and again, for anyone who's confused, the hat note gets them there in just as many clicks as a two-entry dab page). As I said "Careless Whisper" is objectively a more significant song, but it's not called "Never Gonna Dance Again". It certainly isn't clear that it's the primary topic of the phrase, as SMcCandlish says. My position remains that moving this article and using a hat note is the best solution.
There's also the matter that the current disambiguation doesn't actually distinguish the title, as "Careless Whisper" is also a "(song)".--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered most of this already... agree that the current disambiguation is inadequate (I think there's clear consensus on that), agree that by usage (shown by page views, but there's a problem there) the PT is unclear, but by significance the PT is quite clear, Red in the night was just another example of a phrase from a notable song that might be used as a search argument although it's not the song's name (and was, extensively, by me, it's been a personal quest to find it). Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have anything else to say here. I don't believe "Careless Whisper" is a good primary redirect candidate based on the evidence, and that hat notes will solve any confusion sufficiently.--Cúchullain t/c 14:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The usage data is inconclusive, and the significance data is overwhelming. So I'm curious as to when the significance criterion would ever be considered relevant, in your opinion, if not here. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly can be a relevant factor, and I'd say that the significance of "Careless Whisper" is more than enough for it to overall qualify as primary topic for the term "Never Gonna Dance Again" even if that's not the official title of George Michael's song. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)When the two titles actually conflict, or at least when the title of one is a common search term for the other. Otherwise, it's apples and oranges.--Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly as I suspected. Logically, that means never. If we're only going to apply significance when the title of one is a common search term for the other, then we're giving usage absolute priority, and might as well ditch significance. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? There are plenty of cases where long-term significance is a deciding factor between two ambiguously titled topics.--Cúchullain t/c 21:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... didn't expect the ping. I brought up the examples to prove consistency of distinguishing titles. By the way, what do you mean "parallels"? --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean similar enough to this example to be relevant... or in this case, not. Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partially relevant. I'll add more in my vote soon. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: I would return to the "per TWODABS, the hatnotes are entirely sufficient in this case" as good enough. The fact that people in our age range think of "Careless Whisper" when we encounter the string "Never Gonna Dance Again" amounts to WP:IKNOWIT, based on personal familiarity; younger people may well think of the Sugababes track. I don't think the A-B-C analysis below is necessary, because of TWODABS and because PRIMARY should be employed only when the "primaryness" of the connection is unquestionable, which isn't the case here. It probably is actually the case that, on average, people know that the name of the George tune is actually "Careless Whisper", and that I didn't because I never was into sugary pop music and don't spend neurons on remembering trivia about it.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the fact that you and I think of the GM song isn't a reason to decide it's the PT, but it's reason to do some research, and that research confirms our reaction as reasonable. The GM song was an international hit and still gets significant airplay in Aus (where it did best, admittedly), the SB song did nothing. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I do personally like the GM song a great deal (as did many other Aussies it seems), but it's the only thing I've heard from George Michael that was worth a listen. Wham! left me cold... so it's fascinating that I have just learned that Careless Whisper was actually written by the duo, Andrew Ridgeley is arguably supporting himself from his royalties as co-writer.

And just BTW, I see that to date CW is the 34th best-selling single of all time in the United Kingdom [1] if any more evidence of its PT status by significance is needed. I suspect it might be even higher ranking in Aus, as we're the only place it went double platinum. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary redirects

[edit]

Suppose we have two articles, on topics A and B. A and B are both unambiguous names for these topics, and A is the common name for topic A.

Now suppose there's another name C which is ambiguous and could refer to either A or B. And further suppose, someone says let's move article B to C, because the more common name for B is C. End of story, right? C isn't wanted as the name for A, so it's available for B. Right?

Wrong. C can be the common name for B but its primary meaning may still be A. So we still need to ask, what's the primary meaning of C? And if it's A, then C becomes a primary redirect to A, and we need to find another name for article B... perhaps C (D) where D is of course a disambiguator.

And there can be several other similar names, E, F, G, and even a longer version of G, GH, all redirecting to A, particularly if A is a relatively significant topic. The fact that GH redirects to A doesn't make G available as a name for B either. If A is the primary topic of them all, then they all redirect to A. This is most likely when B is a relatively insignificant topic, as here.

Everyone with me on this? It's not the only way to handle this situation, but it's the correct way under our current policy. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, in terms of user-friendliness. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It makes very good sense indeed. And nearly all of the time, our policies and guidelines are right on the money, see wp:correct. Our heated debates nearly always have two things in common: (1) There are strong opinions that the rules should be violated in this instance (or topic area), and (2) There's no hope of consensus to change the rules to cater explicitly for this case (or topic area).
But this isn't a heated debate (whew), I think we're all happy to go with consensus either way (and see User:Andrewa/Andrew's Principle, but ironically, there has sometimes been passionate opposition when I've referred to this in the past). Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2017 (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.

Merge to album?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for merging. feminist 08:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: I think the answer to your question above may be that this shouldn't even be an article. I'm struggling to see anywhere in the article where the issue of notability is addressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge. But even if it's merged, that still leaves the question of what to do at both this title Never Gonna Dance Again (song) and at the proposed RM target Never Gonna Dance Again above. It seems to me that the GM song is primary for both, with a hatnote from it to wherever the SB song ends up. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Never_Gonna_Dance_Again_(Sugababes_song)&oldid=1126871856"