Talk:Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 1[edit]

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: not moved. There is a clear consensus that the exclamation mark alone provides insufficient disambiguation, particularly since the song has not been consistently titled. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) → Dr. Who! – Removing unnecessary disambiguation. What are the odds of someone wanting "Dr. Who" accidentally keying in an extra ! by accident? Very low. Launchballer 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Of course, true "Whovians" know never to abbreviate "Doctor," and you're right, there doesn't seem to be another use that would include the exclamation point. Moving this from Dr. Who! (song) was a step in the wrong direction. --BDD (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both usage and long-term significance. "Dr. Who" and "Dr Who" (without the full stop/period) both redirect to Doctor Who. Any other use requires disambiguation. Radiopathy •talk• 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about Dr. Who. It is about Dr. Who! (note the exclamation mark), which currently redirects to Doctor Who (disambiguation). It should go to this article. It should be the title of this article, --B2C 23:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's unlikely that the majority of people searching for this song will type the exclamation point, or even know it's there; they will be redirected to the wrong article any way, rather than the disambig page. Radiopathy •talk• 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radiopathy, I don't disagree that some readers might not type the exclamation point, and I'm quite sure none of us would say that Dr. Who should redirect here. But for those that do type it, why should we assume they're looking for something else? --BDD (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone type anything, this isn't 2008. Autocomplete will offer up the ! among various other Dr Wh... on both PCs and mobiles. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And those that choose the form with the exclamation point... what, that's just their whimsy, which we should disregard? --BDD (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you 'why would anyone type anything' in a minute. There are no fewer than five computers I use on a daily basis - my desktop, my laptop, my netbook, my computer in Z1 of Overton Grange School and my computer in its Vision to Learn suite and not one of them have auto-correct on them. Neither does my mobile.--Launchballer 17:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Boomur, is this case really comparable to Sandinista! given the changing titles mentioned in the article and when we get this image search? Do you still want to support removal of the artist name from this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, i'm a bit confused—what does a Google image search have to do with anything? ~ Boomur [☎] 02:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Boomur, hi. The image search confirms what the article says, that this has been known as Who, and Dr Who and Dr Who! - so it isn't comparable with Sandinista! which only has one title, with !. On a separate question, since images are part of the way readers on iPhones and Android systems find articles, which image should we upload? Who, or Dr Who or Dr Who!? (for the time being using the only image which seems to show a real physical silver CD). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oof, i didn't look too closely and missed the sometimes-missing !. but, the ! still disambiguates the article sufficiently—even if "Dr. Who" (sans bang) is an alternative title, "Dr. Who!" isn't incorrect. and, i don't really think a move would cause anyone to have any issue finding the article they want. ~ Boomur [☎] 05:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if they're looking for the version without ! and they don't know of the ! version? Then how will they find it? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
then they'll search "Dr. Who", get the disambiguation, and click the right link based on the brief description? ~ Boomur [☎] 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, that's probably how they'll eventually find it. But why put someone through those 3 steps for no reason? Why is it so important to conceal the name of the song artist? After all it isn't a state secret since the names Tujamo and Plastik Funk are displayed clearly on the CD sleeve... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given that "!" isn't even on 2 of 3 of the song's versions, and that Dr. Who (song) redirects to a much more notable song, therefore (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) is required by WP:CRITERIA. And sorry but I don't see any evidence in the above discussion of nominator nor supporters being aware of, or addressing and discussing, the three problems with this article, namely: (a) this song is known as Who (instrumental) and Dr. Who or Dr. Who!, and there is a lack of reliable sources in the article to fix which. (b) the notability tag, and (c) Dr. Who (song) correctly goes to Doctor Who (disambiguation) where the many versions of the Ron Grainer tune are listed under Doctor Who theme tune, some of these have also been released as singles such as Dr. Who (Bongo Hermann song) ska version in 1969. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But have any of those been referred to as "Dr. Who!"? Do you realize the condescending implications of your argument as far as readers are concerned? If there is only one topic called "Dr. Who!"—and I recognize that this is perhaps not yet a settled issue—why would we send a reader searching for that term to a disambiguation page? Also, are you sure the Bongo Hermann song used the abbreviated form? The part of the reference cited doesn't say either way. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, BDD, really? No, in fact I don't realize any condescending implications of my argument as far as readers are concerned. What is my argument? I have argued that this Tujamo and Plastik Funk song has been retailed 3 times with 3 different mp3 download titles. As far as a physical CD there only appears to be a physical CD for Dr Who - why is it condescending to readers to note this?
If your point is that if someone had made an argument that Dr. Who! could only be mistaken for one of the many 100s of Dr. Who media then that person would be deficient in some way then that would be condescending, but I haven't made that argument and I don't see any of the other Oppose opinions making that argument either. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if there isn't another topic for "Dr. Who!," we're only inconveniencing the readers looking for the song. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail me. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per
  1. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  2. Argument that all "Whovians" know never to abbreviate "Doctor," per Dr. Who (Dalek films) (Surely "Whovians" wouldn't bother looking at WP for information in the first place?)
  3. Discussions on which articles are correct using "Dr/Dr./Doctor is a red herring because it assumes that anybody looking for an article knows exactly how it is spelt. Let's close down Wiktionary as it is now surplus to requirements in heady deliberations of song RMs!
  4. Disambiguation by punctuation is never a good idea - see above
  5. The title of the song has been "Who", and "Dr Who" and "Dr Who!" so there is no consistency to suggest any naming conventions.
  6. Bearing in mind the confusion with primarytopic AND other similar named songs and that this article is little more than a discography entry which would be better merged into Tujamo and/or Plastik Funk. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under normal circumstances I favour a hit-and-run approach with discussions like this one but I am fed up of hearing about this article's notability concerns. Can we please deal with where this article is before we decide whether or not we actually need it.--Launchballer 20:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Launchballer, unfortunately a hit and run approach doesn't work well where the article says the song has had different titles; and I don't really understand why you didn't address this issue in your nomination. Generally also where a title is related to a major pop-culture icon there needs to be consideration of other topics, such as the Doctor Who theme tune. Re your notability comment, RMs can and do address notability including improving articles. In this case, I think that given the overwhelming notability of the original Dr Who tune by Ron Grainer then a link to Ron Grainer's tune should be included, and possibly in this stub there should be some actual content about the Tujamo and Plastik Funk song's music and lyrics. Does the original German DJ instrumental tune sample Ron Grainer as dozens of others have done? Does the UK rapper's add-in of lyrics reference the TV series character? This would be of interest in an article with such a famous title. FWIW I am not sure from lyrics, and haven't heard the full tune. Do you know if the Tujamo tune samples Ron Grainer? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Launchballer, I made 6 comments, which can be boiled down to primarytopic, spelling/punctuation, the "correct" name of song, and it's notability. You have taken issue with one of those points, namely, notability. Fair enough, but my point was that this song is just not notable enough to assume any primacy - if I had felt strongly about the notability issue I would have dealt with that separately.--Richhoncho (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are Tujamo and/or Plastik Funk even notable enough to have articles? They only have (1) element of notability, which is this song, that doesn't seem sufficient. -- 65.94.43.240 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are both notable per WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Launchballer 09:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A single element of notability appears to fail WP:GNG, as 1 element of notability is insufficient. MUSICBIO#C2 is only 1-element of notability. What are additional elements of notability for these people? -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Artists with only one charting single have been kept at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onyx (DJ). If you want the point proven, wait until after this move request is over and then file an AFD.--Launchballer 07:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD was very low participation. The biography pages and this song article are separate, so I don't see why a wait would be needed. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you create an account and AfD them again.--Launchballer 07:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Someone searching for Dr. Who may not accidently type an exclamation point ("!"), but it could come up on the autosearch terms and I don't know how one would automatically expect that that one is about the song. It would take people to a page that don't necessarily want to go to because they think it could be for something else. Seems like pointing to a disambiguation page makes the most sense. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it appears that the song is also called "Dr Who" it is entirely possible that someone will search for that wanting this song - therefore I'd oppose the move. 149.254.218.126 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per proper disambiguation guidelines. An exclamation point does not immediately distinguish from other uses. STATic message me! 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a difference in capitalization can be adequate disambiguation, why can punctuation not be? I'm not saying it always is, but it's worth evaluating each case on its own. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Punctuation alone is insufficient in this case to distinguish this song. The well-known and beloved character is the primary topic for every possible punctuated variation of the phrase "D(octo)r(.) Who" it is reasonable for any reader to believe that Dr. Who! is merely an eccentric variation upon the character's name. To provide for reader recognizability and ease of navigation, the current title is the only adequate option. Xoloz (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Xoloz, that punctuation is not sufficient for disambiguation. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The overwhelming international presumption in the English-speaking world is that (minor) variations on “Dr. Who” refer to Doctor Who. The obligation is on this article's title to make the distinction reasonably obvious. Not only is a trailing punctuation mark not obvious as disambiguation, it may not even be obvious that it's part of the name. The requested move is asking that these two:
→ “I love Dr. Who!”
→ “I love Dr. Who!”
deliberately link to different places, which seems unhelpful. Add to that the fact that the proposed new article title is not the song's original title, and may not be the song's final title, it's just the latest in the series. It doesn't seem to be an improvement to abandon a good, clear, descriptive, unambiguous article title only to replace it with this year's name from a list of aliases. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 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 2[edit]

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: not moved. While I may not agree with it, a strong enough consensus has emerged early enough that this can be closed early per WP:SNOW. The next time this can be discussed is 29 December 2014. Launchballer 08:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) → Dr. Who! (song) – Is there another song called "Dr Who!"? Unreal7 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We just had this discussion last month. Suggest a six-month moratorium. Xoloz (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a different question than last time. Dohn joe (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again and forever. Otherwise we will be expected to debate every RM every month and that is even more of a waste. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:SONGDAB. This is a different move and different discussion from last time. How does it help readers to redirect Dr. Who (song) to a dab page when there is only one article on a song with this title? We should put readers' needs first and foremost. Dohn joe (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Dohn joe. I trust before you made your cookie-cutter "support" that the proposed name is not the the common name, nor the official name, nor the "standard" name. Yeah, but you knew exactly where the article should be. I wish I had your confidence to be wrong ;). --Richhoncho (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? BBC and allmusic.com both call it "Dr. Who(!)". Would you mind answering the question I posed, though? Dohn joe (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Launchballer in the last RM. Plus while I am here often instrumental and song are interchangeable (OK I DO know the difference but...) and some people will be looking for the Grainger song. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We just had this discussion last month. Suggest a six-month moratorium. Secondly per WP:SONGDAB which User Dohn joe might want to look at again; we don't disambiguate by articles but if we did the massively more important Doctor Who (Ron Grainger instrumental) outweighs Dr. Who (Tujamo and Plastik Funk instrumental). And all the other reasons above. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a different question, based on WP:SONGDAB. Doctor Who theme = instrumental. Dr. Who = song with lyrics. (instrumental) ≠ (song). There is no other (song) with an article on WP. Dohn joe (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the Dr. Who song is the themesong to the TV show. Ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea, and in this case, a very bad idea since there is another song that is much more likely to be wanted. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Per WP:SONGDAB, (song) ≠ (instrumental). There are no other (songs) on WP. Dohn joe (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. 65 made a very telling comment above, he said, the Dr. Who song is the theme song to the TV show. That's right even though it is an instrumental it is still known as a "theme song." --Richhoncho (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but wouldn't you agree that WP:SONGDAB makes a pretty clear distinction between "songs" and "instrumentals", and how WP treats them in dabs? Dohn joe (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that this particular instrumental, because it is a theme song, is commonly thought of as a song. This common association of the Grainger theme with the word "song" means that either: a) SONGDAB doesn't refer to it, as it is a special case of an instrumental commonly called a "song"; or b.) SONGDAB does refer to it, and SONGDAB needs to change. Take your choice of rationale a) or b); the point is that an instrumental theme song is so often called a song that -- in that special case -- instrumental DOES INDEED = song. Separately, on the issue of process, the question of "(song)" as a disambiguating term was discussed in the prior RM and came to nothing. If this RM also fails, a moratorium would be both logical and prudent. Xoloz (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot c) SONGDAB does refer to it, and it's ok. Check the history over there. Any instrumental can be referred to as a "song", but we've decided that instrumentals should be treated differently from songs with lyrics. Maybe we should change (song) to (vocal) or something like that? Dohn joe (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dohn joe. There isn't a policy and/or guideline at WP that doesn't have to be "interpreted" from time to time. It doesn't mean that the policy or guideline is wrong or needs amendeing (think of the problems created if every time there was a contrary decision that policy/guideline was changed). Whoa up fellah, that ain't the way. Nor is it prudent to always support or oppose according to preconceptions. I understand the concept of shortest possible title, but it's not always possible or prudent, I understand that the general instruction is to use PT but I also understand why songdab does not admit to primary topic. as far as I am concerned the title should be the best option to get the maximum number of readers to the right article. In this case mixing it up with all the Dr Who articles doesn't help anybody. In a year or so this article won't get 100 views a month and will be an irritant for people looking for the Grainger theme song IF we remove the artist name. Xoloz says as much, but better than me. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, is that a yes, or.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition and reason has not changed, although I am surprised that you use songdab to support you this time but that same guideline is held in such derision by you in every other other RM! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SONGDAB is a pretty reasonable, straightforward guideline, when it's applied reasonably and straightforwardly. I'm surprised you don't want to follow it here. Dohn joe (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that (1) both "Dr Who" and "[Dr] Who [!]" started as instrumentals:
Youtube "Dr Who" (Bongo Herman)
Youtube "Who" (Tujamo and Plastic Funk)
And as Richhoncho says (2) "dr+who"+"song" "dr who" "theme song" still shows people calling instrumentals "theme song". In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Who was an instrumental. When they added lyrics, they changed the name to Dr. Who(!). This article focuses on the vocal song, which is the version that made the UK charts. If you feel the focus is wrong, feel free to propose Who (instrumental). Otherwise, let's follow SONGDAB consistently; what do you say? Dohn joe (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who says the theme song doesn't have lyrics? The vocal track here is genuine to the 70s, even if the clip copilation isn't. Hooray for Jon Pertwee! [1] Xoloz
Hooray indeed. And it has to be said that Jon Pertwee's rap on the original tune is a lot more coherent than Sneakbo's rap on the German DJ tune. User:Unreal7 can we close this RM now please? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet.... Unreal7 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why not let an admin close it when it's time, as usual? Maybe they'll agree that WP:SONGDAB supporters have the better argument. Dohn joe (talk) 22:26, 3 July 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.

Really no link to Ron Grainer?[edit]

Note that another Sneakbo song Oliver Twist (D'banj song) also shares the same title as a Ron Grainer BBC TV theme. Possibly just coincidence, and there's no copyright attribution of any sampling in either song, but seems to display awareness of TV theme music. Is it 100% confirmed/denied by the artists that there is zero reference to the famous Dr Who theme? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3[edit]

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: not moved. No prejudice against a further RM to discuss just dropping the "Dr.", but there's clearly no consensus for removing the artist's name from the title. Jenks24 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) → Who! (song) – This is going to sound very odd coming from me since less than a month ago I closed a move discussion for this article to a different destination and declared a six-month moratorium on this article's movement. However, since that discussion, I have expanded the article considerably and it seems that the article gained considerable popularity under the name "Who"; it just charted as "Dr. Who".

Since that expansion, Hadji87 had boldly moved the article to "Who! (song)" with the edit summary "only song called 'who'" or something similar (I haven't looked since the move). This has been followed by a bunch of subsequent moves by others and frankly I am afraid that the DYK for this article will fail the stability test.

I'm starting this discussion to get an answer as to what opinions are on omitting "Dr." and if in favour, should this page be moved to "Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song)" and if so what should we do about Who? (song). (I can see no good reason for two RMs when one will suffice.) Launchballer 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first sight, oppose the article says "British rapper Sneakbo added his vocals to the song and it was re-named "Dr. Who!". It reached number 21 on the UK Singles Chart.", so we'd need a convincing reason to name the article after the instrumental version of the year before. There may be such a reason, but Hadji87 again playing with cut and paste holding pen templates and admins reverting him isn't a reason. As far as the Kern/Hammerstein song if you want to improve the title you may have a case, but you'll need to start a separate RM so editors from WP Musical theatre can see the bot notification. It wouldn't affect this article in any case. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, with the article and the sources, "Who" was massive in clubs and seemed to be more popular than "Dr. Who", which charted. Almost all the sources are from 2013, before it charted.--Launchballer 11:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But as it stands the title is infinitely more helpful to readers trying to find what they want and avoid what they don't:
The main effect of this RM if it goes through would be to hide the most identifiable part of the article title and confuse which the much more notable Who? (song) thus making life difficult for both Ibiza club music fans and Broadway fans. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 28 July 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dr._Who!_(Tujamo_and_Plastik_Funk_song)&oldid=1199853223"