Talk:One Last Time (Agnes 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: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Time (song) → One Last Time (Agnes Carlsson song) – The 2012 Swedish single reached No.33 in Sweden, but One Last Time (Glen Campbell song) (1972 single from album Glen Travis Campbell) reached No.33 on the Billboard US Country song / 78 on the general Billboard 100 and gets 100 hits in Google Books. One Last Time (Dusty Drake song), a 9/11 memorial (2003 single) also gets some Google Book coverage. No one has written standalone articles for these 2 singles, but the Agnes song is WP:RECENT and it would benefit readers for the Swedish artist's single to not be titled as if it was the only (song). See One Last Time. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIO, you're clearly very good at research into these sorts of topics and article creation. If these other songs are so notable, it would be much more beneficial to everyone involved if you'd make one instead of initiating move requests that amount to bending over backwards to help readers navigate to dead ends. Nothing about a title with (song) implies that no other songs of that title exist; merely that they're notable. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is content a "dead end" if it appears in an album article rather than a singles-WP:FORK? Do readers only read about songs if they are forked out of albums?

The two main non-Swedish singles are covered (a) in the real world - Google Books, and (b) in the album articles, which is what WP:DAB stipulates. We've had this conversation before and the two consistent factors are that we don't have the editor demographics to create song articles for 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s songs - things that aren't WP:RECENT (nature of popular music) and there's a mismatch between what Google Books considers notable and what our volunteer articles creators want to spend their free time creating. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, notability is not established by forking out articles. This is a No.33 in Sweden remember. It isn't the only song topic when en.wp articles mention songs called "One Last Time", by Edie Brickell, Dusty Drake, Kellie Pickler, K-Ci and JoJo, Glen Travis Campbell - and two were singles mentioned in Google Books more than this. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand the "bending over backwards" bit - are you saying it's impossible for anyone to look for any "One Last Time" song except the Swedish one? Why are we "bending over backwards" by hiding ~~Agnes Carlsson~~ to suck people to the song - when showing the name of the artist would help everyone, including the Swedish artist's own fans? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reader searching for Foo (song) is looking for an article on a song called Foo. If we have one, we should take them there. If we have more than one, sure, we should usually treat it as an ambiguous search term. If someone is looking for an article on, say, the Glen Campbell song, they're not going to find it no matter what we do. So there's no sense in making it harder to find the article that we do have. --BDD (talk)

@BDD: Not so. A reader searching for Foo (song) is looking for information about a song called Foo. It is only an artefact of presentation whether that info is in a standalone article or a section of a larger article; what matters to the reader is that they want to learn about the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but in so many cases, the only information they're going to learn about the song is the album on which it was released; in many cases, they may know this already, especially if they're fans of the artist. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to assume that a reader looking for info does so for any particular reason, or to assume that they have any particular level of existing knowledge. Unless you can point to some research evidence, that is pure speculation.

If a reader looks up a song they have just heard about called "foo", and its name is ambiguous, then they should be taken to a disambiguation page unless there is a primary topic. Note "primary topic", not "primary article". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in the absence of other articles that could occupy this title. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. A reader will not be looking for any old Foo (song), but for Foo song by a specific artist which is why it is better to pre-empt reader searches. Here, where the title is fairly commonplace, the chances of the Carlsson song being primary over and above every other instance of the use of title is not a sustainable argument. This is why WP:NCM and specifically WP:SONGDAB do not follow primary topic (these two guidelines fully supported by the policy WP:AT --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No other songs of this title that have articles or coverage in other existing articles. The proposed title violates WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the fact that other notable songs are not yet covered in a standalone article is irrelevant. Coverage of them exists in other articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BDD should not be allowed to vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? They hadn't already voted above, if that's what you mean, that is they've only voted once. But it's a rather strange place to bring this up... Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per BrownHairedGirl. If other songs exist, they are likely to be covered in other articles, whether they currently have standalone articles or not. Additionally, providing for greater specificity now (in cases where we know other songs do exist) saves us the trouble of disambiguating later, once those songs eventually have standalone articles written about them. Xoloz (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support following BHG's reasoning. — Scott • talk 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There seems no doubt that reader experience will be better for including the artist in this particular title, and perhaps that means that a tweak to WP:PRECISE and/or WP:CONCISE and perhaps other guidelines as well is needed to allow for such cases. Andrewa (talk) 09:53, 22 February 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.

Requested move 14 November 2015

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: moved. The consistency argument is a good one and three of four participants are in favour. Jenks24 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Time (Agnes Carlsson song) → One Last Time (Agnes song) – She may have her full name on her article page, but so does Sia. Besides, this was the original title two years ago. Unreal7 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose she hasn't changed her surname. Why should we move it because she has decided to go for mononym status for marketing purposes? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IIO, you literally baffle me... Unreal7 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, we should move back all Beyoncés' to Knowles. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. Due to the other articles listed at Category:Agnes Carlsson and subcategories. If they are moved to Carlsson as well I'm not opposed to it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If she's generally known as "Agnes", "Carlsson" isn't needed for disambiguation. It appears in the article's name because it is needed for disambiguation there. This has been done elsewhere, for instance for Sia's singles, despite the fact that the artist's article is at Sia Furler. Most "Agnes" songs are already titled this way; they need to be made consistent whichever way this article turns out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but they've all just been moved there haven't they? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Looking up at the section above, apparently this is a mildly controversial issue – more participation to get a clearer outcome would be welcome. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2015 (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.