Talk:Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album)

merge of single

Per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Since there is coverage beyond the chart positions, merging this information is appropriate. Cmprince (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be expanding the article soon. It deserves its own article, plus if its merged into here then users will just recreate the song's article. Oz ^talk 06:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I Am (album) → Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album) — The article Yes I Am is the more notable album, so this article needs to be disambiguated with the artist name. Cmprince (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support. As the current primary topic is an album, further disambiguation is required. Yes I Am (album) should redirect to Yes I Am. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But the case illustrates the absurdity of that other article being considered "the primary topic" (as if there must be a primary topic), and bearing the uninformative title Yes I Am. It should have a qualifier also. Noetica^Tea? 04:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is now clear that a few very similarly named articles are involved; their treatment therefore needs to be considered together. The appropriate step, as I see it, is to withdraw or deny this RM and issue a new one according to the provisions at WP:RM for multiple RMs. (They are there for a reason. ☺) Noetica^Tea? 22:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has anyone implied that there must be a primary topic? That would be contrary to common practice and the relevant guideline. Anyway, if you feel there is no primary topic of "Yes I Am", then you could start a RM at Talk:Yes I Am. Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be contrary to the relevant guideline; but you seemed to make that implication and that assumption (all too common lately in RMs) in your support vote, above. Have you shown that there is a primary topic, or just assumed it? If so, why? It's all a bit confusing actually. Can we see a list of all potentially affected articles, along with with their topics? The article Yes I Am (with italics) has this note at the top: "This article is about the song by Melissa Etheridge." But that seems contradicted by the first sentence of the lead: "Yes I Am is the fourth studio album by American singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge, released by Island Records on September 21, 1993 (see 1993 in music)" (with links). Noetica^Tea? 03:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer your points/questions back to front, if that's ok. The hanote at Yes I Am has been corrected to say that the article is on about an album. The reason it was incorrect, it seems, is because it was recently added and the user adding the hatnote did not read the article correctly. As far as I can see, the list of "affected" articles are: Yes I Am, a 1993 album by Melissa Etheridge; Yes I Am (album), a 2011 album by Jack Vidgen; and Yes I Am (song), a 2011 song by Jack Vidgen from the aforementioned album. Now that I take a closer look at all three articles, a case could probably be made that there is no primary topic. Etheridge's album was released worldwide and charted in many countries, but Vidgen's album did reach no. 1 in Australia (though it has not been released elsewhere). I would be very hesitant to claim that either the Vidgen album or single could be the primary topic considering how recently they were released. I see us as having two options: either we keep the Etheridge album as the primary topic, or we decide there is no primary topic for "Yes I Am" and we create a dab page at Yes I Am and move the article that is currently there to Yes I Am (Melissa Etheridge album). But either way, this article would end up at Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album) because even if the Etheridge album is not the primary topic, Yes I Am (album) is ambiguous. "Have you shown that there is a primary topic, or just assumed it? If so, why?" This is irrelevant to this particular RM and is really just muddying the waters as the end result will be the same whether there is one or not. If anyone feels that the Etheridge album is not the primary topic, then that discussion should occur at Talk:Yes I Am – to try and add it into this debate will probably cause it to end it a mess of "no consensus". Jenks24 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jenks. Trust me, I had no intention of "muddying the waters" here. Quite the contrary! I'm glad things are clearer now. I don't want to be difficult; but I have to withdraw my support altogether and call for an alternative procedure in line with WP:RM. See above. Noetica^Tea? 22:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. No doubt you have the best of intentions, Noetica, but this looks like process wonkery to me. Either way, this article will end up at Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album). The reason this should not be turned into a multi-move is because "Yes I Am (album)" --> "Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album)" is completely uncontroversial, but a primary topic discussion of "Yes I Am" is potentially controversial – by combining the two you end up with the possibility of a "no consensus" or "not moved" outcome that results in not even the simple uncontroversial move being done (and, yes, I have seen that happen before). There are two separate issues here and they should be treated as such. Jenks24 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you don't like insistence on the best available procedure, Jenks. That mechanism exists partly to avoid the very problems we have seen here. The RM has been confusing from the start, and the only way to advertise the thing transparently, for people to make informed decisions about what to advocate – or even whether to take notice at all – is to start again and get it right. If the present RM were not something to bring clearly to editors at the WP:RM page, why was it not simply moved without an RM? And what's the rush? Let's just do it the way the guidelines set out. Noetica^Tea? 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "rush", but a) that is still no reason to take longer than necessary and b) if we followed your idea, we could easily be two weeks down the track with no consensus and the simple obvious move not even done. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here – the two issues are only tangentially related and only one is relevant to this RM. As to why this was not moved without going through RM, I don't know, but if it had have been me, I would have just moved it myself – this is as uncontroversial as it gets. I'm still not really sure why you're opposing, do you think this article should end up at a title that is not "Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album)"? Jenks24 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I only listed it because I have not tried to move over a redirect in years, when such a move was not possible, and I only now see that this has changed (WP:MOR). As to the other arguments: I think that a multiple move does not need to be considered here. This article will not become the primary topic and another article with the same title is also an album, therefore it needs to be further disambiguated, whether or not the other article remains the primary topic. Had I known about WP:MOR, I would have moved this page without moving Yes I Am, but based on this discussion it should probably be moved and a dab page put in its place. Cmprince (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something I can comfortably answer until I see a reasonable proposal for all affected articles. So far, they are a confused and confusing bunch – especially since the string "Yes I am" (however capped) has all the appearance of some more general notion unconnected with songs or albums. I know we both act in good faith; let's stay civil and work through this. Let me be clear about one thing: I will oppose any proposal that seeks to allocate Yes I Am (however capped) to some "primary topic". I am now satisfied that there is no such thing in this case; and even if by some sophistry one can be found, I will oppose Yes I Am being used for any one item among the several candidates, to the exclusion of others. That would clearly help no one, least of all any readers. [Supplemented and re-signed.] Noetica^Tea? 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album), reversing the recent undiscussed move. The current disambiguator (album) is a poor one, and we seem to have a consensus on that. I'd suggest that the current title (Yes I Am (album)) simply redirect to Yes I Am, which already has a hatnote to Yes I Am (Jack Vidgen album). Andrewa (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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. No further edits should be made to this section.