Jump to content

Talk:Bathwater (song)

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

Is this song the main meaning of bathwater?

[edit]

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. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

  • Is Bathwater (song) 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 bathwater?
Does Bathwater (song) have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with bathwater? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bathwater. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bathwater. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2018

[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: Move. There are convincing arguments on both sides, but the consensus leans to moving this article. The most compelling argument on the opposing side is that no other articles are specifically titled "Bathwater". On the other hand, it was noted that bathwater is discussed, both by name and by the general concept of water used for a bath, at Bathing, an article on a universal human practice. It was further suggested that sources are present to extend this coverage, perhaps to the point of creating a separate article. The prominence of the phrase Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater mentioned below, while not a direct competitor itself, speaks to how commonly readers will encounter the word in the context of bathing rather than in what is by all indications a minor No Doubt song. As such, I find the supporting arguments, which are in the majority, stronger. There's no agreement whatsoever that bathing or any other topic should be treated as primary, so Bathwater (disambiguation) will go to the base name. Cúchullain t/c 15:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bathwater → Bathwater (song) – "The single was a commercial failure, contradicting the overall success of the Return of Saturn project. In the United States, the song failed to enter the Billboard Hot 100 and barely entered the Billboard Adult Top 40 chart, inching to number 39".... Even a WP PRIMARYREDIRECT to Bathwater (song) would make more sense than this. Alternatively redirect to Bathing#Bathing_babies In ictu oculi (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Station1, for the umpteenth time "There's no other article" is not how titling on Wikipedia works. Please look at WP:TITLE, in particular WP:CRITERIA then WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Bathing#Bathing_babies is the nearest thing to a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, topic not title. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The policy you cite is about titles, not topics. Topics are disambiguated by titles. The article about the topic of bathing would not be titled bathwater and the article about the topic Bathwater would not be titled bathing. As long as two titles are not identical, there is rarely a reason to disambiguate the titles. That is called overprecision. If there could be any confusion about topics, when titles are not identical, we disambiguate topics by other means such as less intrusive hatnotes and/or dab pages or sometimes mention in the article's body or See Also section. Station1 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't disagree; see Hurricane. If we go by titles rather than topics then the plane would be at Hurricane (since Hurricane is a mention in Tropical Cyclone) and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT wouldn't exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned to you before, Hurricane points to an article that is about that topic, has thousands of incoming wikilinks and hundreds of views per day, so qualifies as a useful primary redirect. Bathwater doesn't. Comparing the two is like comparing a hurricane to bathwater. Station1 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the point - Comparing the two shows that what you keep saying on RMs is incorrect. We don't disambiguate by title, but by topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in rare cases, yes. But not usually, because in the large majority of cases it is detrimental to the majority of readers. Station1 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not an encyclopedic topic then why is water in a bath covered in the bathing article? Shouldn't that paragraph be deleted to concentrate on baths without water? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bathwater_(song)&oldid=1195543186"