Talk:Shopping (Ryan Bang song)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Language needs indicating
[edit]Is there still no field for language in infobox? Then at least in header it needs indicating that this is a Korean song with an English title. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN1RhOVshNo In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 6 July 2015
[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: Moved. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Shopping (song) → Shopping (Ryan Bang song) – WP:SONGDAB: a new Korean-language Youtube by a lunchtime comedian should not be squatting on the (song) spot as if the English-language "Shopping" songs by Pet Shop Boys, Barenaked Ladies and Paul Weller do not already have mentions on relevant album articles. Instead Shopping (song) should redirect to Shopping (disambiguation) for mobile users looking for the older and more long-lasting English-language "Shopping" songs. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note also that Shopping (Barenaked Ladies song) and Shopping (Pet Shop Boys song) appear to have been used in adverts and/or TV soundtracks, and that Peter Weller and The Jam's "Shopping" has been covered by other artists. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom, this should point to the dab page -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no coverage for any other song named Shopping on WP - this is User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 16:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation another one? How many of these essays against existing practice have to be taken to AFD? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you checked the history you'd see you were the one who already took it to MfD... Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation another one? How many of these essays against existing practice have to be taken to AFD? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Shopping (disambiguation) lists multiple other "Shopping" songs of similar notability to this one. Consider the others as valid redlinks. This one is merely benefiting from recentism bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Per Shopping (disambiguation), there are lots of other songs with this name that are discussed (or at least mentioned) on Wikipedia, and this song doesn't look especially dominantly notable, and partial disambiguation is generally undesirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not convinced we should disambiguate against topics that haven't been proven to meet WP:N – if they don't have significant coverage in reliable sources the chances of people searching for them seem slim at best to me. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Jenks24 if you want to change the WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline that the same standard for article notability WP:N applies to content in articles you will need to start a RFC to change WP:DISAMBIGUATION so we no longer disambiguate on topic, but standalone article. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is an irritating response, it feels like you are deliberately trying to be blind to the opinions of others. WP:AT clearly states "According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary." And it is completely apparent to me that when it says "topic" it means "a topic that Wikipedia covers" – otherwise we are disambiguating against any time the word has ever been used in the English language. Some non-notable garage band recorded an original song called "Let It Be"? Better move Let It Be (song) to Let It Be (Beatles song). But of course we don't do that because it would be ridiculous. And it is the same principle here – until any of these other songs called "Shopping" are actually covered on Wikipedia I will maintain my position that the current disambiguation sufficiently meets WP:AT. I understand you have a different interpretation of the policy, and although I believe it's incorrect, you are welcome to it. I won't insult your intelligence by saying you are flat out wrong and have to go start a RfC. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree generally and on several points. The personal attacks should be withdrawn with apology. It is not completely apparent at all, in fact I agree with IIO's interpretation, and think that yours is a bit of a stretch. At the very least it can be argued both ways. Agree that this is a key point. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I said it was completely apparent to me. The whole point of that spiel was that people can have different interpretations, and pinging them to tell them their interpretation is wrong and they need to go start a RfC is antagonistic. Jenks24 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's splitting hairs. I can understand IIO's frustration when the oppose votes seem based on a failed proposal (see discussion below). IIO is stating what many of us feel. Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- To be clear, lest the closer be misled by your comment, my vote was in no way based on B2C's essay – it was completely based on the article titles policy. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's splitting hairs. I can understand IIO's frustration when the oppose votes seem based on a failed proposal (see discussion below). IIO is stating what many of us feel. Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I said it was completely apparent to me. The whole point of that spiel was that people can have different interpretations, and pinging them to tell them their interpretation is wrong and they need to go start a RfC is antagonistic. Jenks24 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree generally and on several points. The personal attacks should be withdrawn with apology. It is not completely apparent at all, in fact I agree with IIO's interpretation, and think that yours is a bit of a stretch. At the very least it can be argued both ways. Agree that this is a key point. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is an irritating response, it feels like you are deliberately trying to be blind to the opinions of others. WP:AT clearly states "According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary." And it is completely apparent to me that when it says "topic" it means "a topic that Wikipedia covers" – otherwise we are disambiguating against any time the word has ever been used in the English language. Some non-notable garage band recorded an original song called "Let It Be"? Better move Let It Be (song) to Let It Be (Beatles song). But of course we don't do that because it would be ridiculous. And it is the same principle here – until any of these other songs called "Shopping" are actually covered on Wikipedia I will maintain my position that the current disambiguation sufficiently meets WP:AT. I understand you have a different interpretation of the policy, and although I believe it's incorrect, you are welcome to it. I won't insult your intelligence by saying you are flat out wrong and have to go start a RfC. Jenks24 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Jenks24 if you want to change the WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline that the same standard for article notability WP:N applies to content in articles you will need to start a RFC to change WP:DISAMBIGUATION so we no longer disambiguate on topic, but standalone article. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jenks24. No other articles on songs of this title, or more than a mention at any other article.--Cúchullain t/c 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jenks24 et al. Calidum T|C 00:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Current situation is unhelpful in the extreme. If the relevant policies and guidelines really do support it (I'm skeptical, see above), then ignore for now and fix. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]It seems strange that the userfied version of the essay at User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation is cited above, when the version at Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation clearly states that this proposal currently does not have consensus support. It's not currently in Category:Wikipedia failed proposals, but it probably should be if only under WP:SNOW. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.