Talk:Ready for Your Love

Requested move 9 May 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: moved. Inappropriate comments aside, there is consensus among policy-based arguments that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SSTflyer 10:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– In ictu oculi moved this page in 2014 without any prior discussion, because he lives by this outrageous fallacy that there must never, ever be a primary topic, no matter how blatantly obvious a primary topic is. He created the other article solely to justify the move, even though the article of the band who performed the other song doesn't contain a single reference or have any information of their time together. Unreal7 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not usual to include a personal attack in the template. WP:MOVE allows moves where there are multiple subjects, I have said to Unreal7 before that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has two criteria of which page views are only one. There are many articles, 1000s, which do pass both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but there often is no absolute topic in terms of long-term significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know what you mean, both the Anita Baker bio (as her first charting single) and the Chapter 8 (album) article mention the 1979 single which charted higher in the US than the 2014 single did. As far as notability, Category:2014 songs has 1,979 articles while Category:1979 songs has only 701 articles, and while that doesn't prove that Anita Baker's first charting single should be standalone or in the album article it does speak to Wikipedia's WP:RECENT issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Not a very rational rationale for a primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Despite the unnecessary personalization and lack of evidence given by the nom, the proposal meets the guidelines: 89% of pageviews are for the Gorgon City song article, which is a strong primarytopic by usage, and none of the other topics outstrip it in significance. Dohn joe (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In ictu oculi moved this page in 2014 without any prior discussion, because he lives by this outrageous fallacy that there must never, ever be a primary topic, no matter how blatantly obvious a primary topic is. Please, lets focus on evidence to support your requested move instead of making inappropriate comments such as the one you made above. It does not help or contribute positively to the discussion. Cheers. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – From an uninvolved observer (never heard of either song or band before), both songs look equally valid in terms of notability. The 2014 song has a natural advantage in interest from readers just because it happens to be recent; the dab page allows readers to discover the arguably notable 1979 song (plus a bunch of others which don't have a page, probably because they are arguably non-notable). Isn't Wikipedia about expanding the readers' horizon? — JFG ^talk 22:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFG: I understand the sentiment, but isn't one of the main purposes of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to get as many readers as possible to the article they want to find as quickly as possible? Wouldn't you agree that the Gorgon City song is the article most readers want? Especially since the alternatives are, as you say, at best arguably notable? Sending readers someplace they don't want to go isn't really expanding horizons, and is not what WP is about. Dohn joe (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dohn joe: Either you misread my argument or I misstated it... I argue that there is no primary topic here, because two of the songs are arguably notable and have non-trivial articles, an old one and a recent one. The disambig page also lists 2 other non-notable songs which don't have an article and one album which is covered in its author's biography Buddy Greco. To answer your point about helping people go where they want, the search box takes care of that pretty well. Start typing the song's name today and you'll see both songs suggested immediately. In fact, if we executed the proposed move, this would diminish the visibility of the most recent song, because the search box would offer "Ready for Your Love" and "Ready for Your Love (Chapter 8 song). If I were looking for the 2014 song, I'd much rather see clearly "Ready for Your Love (Gorgon City song)" and "Ready for Your Love (Chapter 8 song), and that's precisely what we have now. — JFG ^talk 00:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JFG: That's an argument for universal disambiguation - in other words, doing away with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC altogether. Which is an arguable position, but it's not what current WP policy says. Policy asks us to look at usage and significance to determine whether there is a primarytopic. Here, the Gorgon City song article clearly has the most usage by far, and no other "Ready for Your Love" clearly exceeds it in significance. The fact that there are two notable articles with the same title is the entire reason we have primarytopic discussions. Dohn joe (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dohn joe: I'm not advocating for a change in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines, just stating that this particular case looked to me like none of the songs could claim to be the primary topic, in which case the common practice is to place a dab page at the shared name (in other words, no change from current situation in this case). I understand that your opinion is different and I respect that. The RfC process should settle the matter. I didn't expect to get into a long discussion as I was just commenting on this RfC in passing, again not having heard of either song before. Such is the magic of being a late-night Wikipedian

— JFG ^talk 18:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - just trying to lay out my case and get a feel for yours. Dohn joe (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article receives 89.2 of the page views in the last 90 days, and even then the Chapter 8 song's stats were inflated by a jump when this RM opened. No other has more "long term significance" so it's best to follow what the vast majority of readers are looking for.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cuchullain - the page view statistics and a google search tell us something. Obviously there is a slight WP:RECENT issue, but no clear evidence of long term significance for the Central 8 song. — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. same old arguments from the long fellows -v- short fellows. These moves (with or without an RM) are of no help to anybody. The nomination is based on short-term notability, not long-term significance and, like nearly every entertainment product would, fails the criteria required of PrimaryTopic. Those arguing that getting the maximum people to the right article have a point, but fail to find a logical conclusion because WP deals with disambiguation by several different methods. (i.e. Which way is WP going to deal with the disambiguation of the article I am looking for?) If this song was likely to be recorded and made famous by other artists there becomes a good reason to remove the artists' name, but that isn't the case here, anybody looking for this song is looking for a song by Gorgon City. There is no benefit to anybody in this article being a short fellow that is hard to find. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:54, 21 May 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.