Talk:Over and Over Again

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ariana Grande, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ariana Grande on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ariana GrandeWikipedia:WikiProject Ariana GrandeTemplate:WikiProject Ariana GrandeAriana Grande articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 19 January 2016

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: Move. Close but fairly clear consensus that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– This song has been a UK top 10 hit and has also charted on the U.S. dance chart. None of the other topics are notable at all. Unreal7 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: primary topic. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 23:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Insertcleverphrasehere just checking, when you said that were you aware of the Rodgers and Hart song? Is last November's Nathan Sykes song really more long-term encyclopaedic than all the other songs combined? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No need to disambiguate since this is the only article with this title. Calidum T|C 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and restore back to Over and Over Again (Nathan Sykes song) prior to 1 December 2015‎ undiscussed move. X Factor singer gets a UK No.8 is WP:RECENT when Alma Cogan and Gene Autry and half a dozen others also had singles of this name; but the most notable song in books is the Rodgers and Hart song of 1935, which was also a single Over and Over Again (Doris Day song) from the 1962 MGM film Billy Rose's Jumbo: In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Spivak Buzz: The Life and Art of Busby Berkeley 0813126436 Page 264 2011 "The biggest number, the very ideal of spectacle, is the impressive “Over and Over Again” number sung by Doris Day."

IIO, you never use anything other than Google Books as your reason for opposing. That is not relevant here. Unreal7 (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Google Books is WP:RS, and proof against time and chase-our-own-tail counting of page views for content we do provide compared to content we don't. Bizarrely as well this song by Nathan Sykes has not a word about the actual physical song in the article - nothing about music, instrumentation, lyrics, just commercial information. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a PS to this, I am seeing enough evidence that the page view statistics are not reliable. There are some strange happenings at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Popular pages. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unnecessary retitling, although adding Nathan Sykes per WP:SONGDAB looks quite good and almost guaranteed for a future move. Pop is and has always been very "come today, gone tomorrow" and any argument that uses primary topic should address "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." which is part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I am not convinced there is any long-term educational value to most song articles and nobody has bothered to enlighten us why this particular song will be more notable than any other article in the future. All I see is a song which made #8 in the UK charts - neither position nor territory suggests that that the majority of WP readers will know, understand or even care about this song. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We disambiguate based on topics, not titles, but this is currently the only topic WP:NOTABLE enough for its own article, which makes it the de facto WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Btw - Google Books is an excellent resource both for content and for primarytopic questions - when there are multiple wp:notable topics. Here there is just one at the moment. We can always revisit this in the future - that's the great thing about Wikipedia! Let's try to make this the best outcome for our readers - today. Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closer please note this user consistently on RMs does not agree with what WP:DISAMBIGUATION actually says : that we disambiguate by content. We have content on the Doris Day song in 3 articles - covering the original 1935 Jumbo musical, the Jumbo film and the Jumbo soundtrack. Evidently the Rodgers and Hart song is more long term notable, no one here disputes that. Evidently the Rodgers and Hart song gets more coverage in books, again no one here disputes that. And the X Factor winner's UK No.8 this November is about as far from an absolute majority topic as could be imagined. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Sykes isn't an X Factor winner... Unreal7 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2016 (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.