Jump to content

Talk:Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Man from Nephew (talk | contribs) at 12:05, 9 April 2015 (→‎Requested move 6 April 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit request

Requesting removal of "it follows the chord progression Dm–F–C–Gm" under the composition heading. It's unnecessary and misleading, giving the impression that those four chords loop in that order throughout the entire song, when they don't. It may even be incorrect, while the sheet music arrangement cited denotes an F, the piano score is missing the root, while the track itself has an audible E making it unambiguously Am. Furoar (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You are providing original research. Adabow (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I think Synthpop isn't a good genre and if it must stay should be supplied with a source --92.17.8.227 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for coming here to discuss it. The composition section says ""Wrecking Ball" is a synthpop ballad", and cites this as a reference. Considering that On the Red Carpet is an entertainment/celebrity gossip site and not a music critic one, I don't think it is appropriate to cite it as a source for genre. I'll remove it now. Adabow (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2013 (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. 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: No move, following the recent creation of Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song). Depending on what becomes of that article, it may be worth revisiting this request. Cúchullain t/c 18:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) → Wrecking Ball (song) – This is the only song called "Wrecking Ball" with an article. 69.117.171.98 (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP listed at SPI In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I actually just turned Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) into an article - I did it since I had all the Google Books open and seemed silly to waste the sources - I note the fact simply because it explains why one of the redlinks is now blue - it shouldn't be used as a factor in this RM, because it could easily be merged into the album after a full merger discussion. I would prefer that this doesn't distract from the real issue here - is article content or article title the basis of disambiguation, WP:DAB says it is article content. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there are not 2 articles with this name, I said Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) could be merged to the album "after a full merger discussion" - Miley Cyrus fan user:Adabow apparently disagrees and believes that no discussion is necessary and has deleted and redirected, then discarded half of the article and sources about the Emmylou Harris version, and merged about 2/3 of what was left. Which is fine by me since the whether a song is a WP:FORK from an album or inside an album shouldn't matter. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't redirect the article to make a point, I did so because it simply doesn't meet WP:NSONGS. If you disagree, feel free to revert and/or discuss at the talk page. It wasn't in bad faith, for what it's worth. Note that I also added some info to Harris' album article. I am not supporting out of "fandom" or any similar reason, but I sincerely believe extra dab is unnecessary precision. Would you also have Love Me Again (song) disambiguated further and the former titlee redirected to Love Me Again for similar reasons? Adabow (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The recent creation of the Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) article indicates how relatively unimportant it is. So even if it counts as coverage on WP, the hugely popular new Miley Cyrus version is clearly the primary topic between these two (and all songs named "Wrecking Ball"). --B2C 00:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there is no such thing as "primary topic... between two songs." Note that WP:PRIMARYSONG has been removed from MOS:ALBUM months ago as a no-consensus addition contradicting WP:NCM, and note also that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would have to tackle Wrecking Ball (Bruce Springsteen album) (2012) and Wrecking Ball (Emmylou Harris album) (1995). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:48, 6 October 2013 (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.

Release Date

The release date is incorrect. That release was only for promotional release. It was released as a single in September 13.

Alternative cover

The second cover looks like fan art. While the Hung Medien websites are reliable for chart data, they are less reliable for cover art and release info. A search on the RCA site only finds the first cover. Is there a more reliable source for the second cover? Adabow (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the cover and I searched for similar images on Google: such search pointed to fan-made edits of the song and no official website reported it. I think it should be removed. prism △ 22:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Launchballer 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 6 April 2015

Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) → Wrecking Ball – Page views in the last 90 days:

Other topics at Wrecking ball (disambiguation) are either only partial title matches or don't have articles at all. These articles' combined pageviews: 19,045, less than half of those for the Cyrus song. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." It is apparent that Cyrus' song is the primary topic for "Wrecking Ball" topics that are not the actual wrecking ball. With capitalization used to disambiguate it from the object per WP:DIFFCAPS, we should opt for the more WP:CONCISE title.

Any potential ambiguity can be easily remedied with hatnotes atop Wrecking ball and the Cyrus song's article:

This article is about the object. For the Miley Cyrus song, see Wrecking Ball. For other uses, see Wrecking ball (disambiguation).
This article is about the Miley Cyrus song. For the object, see Wrecking ball. For other uses, see Wrecking ball (disambiguation).


–Chase (talk / contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (for this Wrecking Ball above other Wrecking Balls) and WP:DIFFCAPS (compared to, of course, wrecking ball). Red Slash 19:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Even when no other subject is involved I think that credit can rightly be given to Miley Cyrus with inclusion of her name in the title. I also think that the fact that there is an object that is a Wrecking ball should be given priority mention over a song that is called "Wrecking Ball". I also note, with disappointment, that the ball in the picture hasn't been licked clean. GregKaye 19:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation isn't about "giving credit"; it's about helping the reader find the article they're looking for most quickly. In the face of evidence that readers looking for "Wrecking Ball" works topics overwhelmingly pick the Cyrus article, we should accommodate this majority and provide a hatnote to the disambiguation page for everyone else. Furthermore, this RM distinctly differentiates between "Wrecking ball" and "Wrecking Ball" (DIFFCAPS). –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthesis can also be about explanation as in the comparatively mundane examples of Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) in WP:Precision.
We are not talking here about different things in completely different categories such as Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology) but a variety of songs.
I don't think that by seeing "Wrecking Ball" that there would be universal certainty as to the subject. I don't see the motivation for or the benefit of the move.
43,156 / (12,515 + 442 + 5,071 + 1,017) only gives a ratio of 2.6:1 GregKaye 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Double - almost triple - the other articles combined is not a significant ratio? –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
despite not agreeing with the reasoning Hannah! Hannah! Where are you? GregKaye 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMALLDETAILS – also known as DIFFCAPS, which I cited in the OP – says that "This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other." But I find it to be incredibly unlikely that a reader searching for the demolition tool would use a capital "b", as if it's the title of a work. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other "Wrecking Ball" topics are also fairly recent – Springsteen's album, for instance, came out just a year before Cyrus' song – but they don't approach the Cyrus song article's popularity. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral while the page views are high, I'm not quite sure if it's simply due to WP:Recentism. Either way, it most certainly won't be forgotten anytime soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per recentism. If this song is still getting the same sort of traffic in five or ten years from now, then maybe justifiable as primary topic. But otherwise not so overwhelming as to change status quo. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS, which states that "This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level". Since pop music tends towards the ephemeral, we should keep in mind how WP:RECENT the song is. In the event it turns out to have lasting cultural significance, it can be re-evaluated in the future. We shouldn't assume it will, since most popular songs won't. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:RECENTISM discusses the weight that should be given to the various aspects of a subject in a text. It urges us to "be aware of balance and historical perspective." It does not mention primary topics. However, WP:CRYSTALBALL does provide advise relevant to this situation. Man from Nephew (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wrecking_Ball_(Miley_Cyrus_song)&oldid=655668281"