Talk:Because of You

Redirect link for Clarkson/McEntire duet

Discussion moved here from User talk:ShelfSkewed:

I noticed that you had reverted one of my edits on Because of You regarding the fact that Because of You (Reba McEntire and Kelly Clarkson song) is a redirect to Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song). You are correct in the fact that they both point towards the same article; however, "Because of You (Reba McEntire and Kelly Clarkson song)" redirects to a specific section in "Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song)", and thus should be listed separately on the disambiguation page "Because of You". Reverting that edit as good faith would only serve a purpose if the link Because of You (Reba McEntire and Kelly Clarkson song) was listed in Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song), which it is not. If you do not feel this is correct, please cite to me part of MOS:DAB that states otherwise; I was just looking at it, and did not see such a thing stated in it. Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a stated guideline, but it's not something that's done for any other song I can think of. Listing just the link for the original and mentioning significant cover versions in the description avoids redundancy and reduces clutter on the page. Are you seriously suggesting that a dab page should include not just a direct link for the original version of a song but a redirect link for every later version that has its own section in the article? This seems, as I said, needlessly redundant and would be a significant departure from common practice, one that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to what I am suggesting; no, I am in no way suggesting that every cover receive its own section on a disambiguation page. However, in this specific case, this version is notable enough that it separately went up the music charts (as well as was considered a country song rather than pop) and has enough information in its section to be its own article. The song even has its own infobox. In addition, due to the notability of this remake. There will be editors and users who will be looking for the cover as opposed to the remake; the separate listing simplifies their search. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that you were discussing only cover versions with dedicated sections. And I should also mention that I brought up this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages because, as you said, the issue is not addressed directly in the guidelines. I remain unconvinced, however, that adding another line, and another link, accomplishes anything that isn't handled by simply mentioning the later version in the description of the original.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Redirect listings for cover versions; the rest of my response (the personal side of it) will be on your talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having more than one entry going to the same article isn't helpful - if the cover is important (as asserted), then combine on one line ... I will be bold so you can judge... Widefox; talk 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with that point, mainly due to the fact that the redirect going to that section could be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. I would recommend participating in the aforementioned discussion, unless a consensus can be reached here. For the time being, I will revert the edit. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An entry based on a redirect is allowed per WP:DABREDIR - this is not disputed. The issue is that it doesn't help the reader to have multiple entries for the same article - and I've never seen it. Yes, surprisingly it isn't explicit in WP:MOSDAB but this is the whole purpose of what a DAB page does ... MOS:DABENTRY "the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." A separate article needs to be there first, and only after that add a second entry (if justified), rather than the possibility of a second one. FYI I came here from the DAB project page, and consider this is an open and shut case, so I don't propose adding it to MOSDAB or continuing discussion elsewhere, here is good. Two of us are in complete agreement about this edit, so best to gain consensus before re-adding your controversial edit, and hold back reverting until then. Widefox; talk 02:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participate in this discussion here? No thanks. In my opinion, seems like this discussion here serves no purpose for me, anymore. I'd rather revert my edit, ~~drop the stick~~, and avoid an edit war. Input from me will be found on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Everyone in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this some thought, I have decided to "pick the stick back up", and here's the reason: there are several articles on Wikipedia that have a link in their articles that refer to the cover version, rather than the original performed by Kelly Clarkson by herself. Let's say one day, out of "nowhere", several links appear on articles that refer directly to Because of You. Well, in this scenario, someone will have to go through the tedious task of having to disambiguate all of those links, usually by using DAB solver. While in the process of doing so, these editors come to the realization that some of these links refer to Because of You (Reba McEntire and Kelly Clarkson song) as opposed to Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song). In a case like this, readers will need to be directed to the correct location on the article for the immediate access to the information in which they are seeking. If the link is disambiguated to go to the top of the article, whereas it should go to the middle where the cover is located. If the link to redirect going towards the cover is not listed here, then these editors will most likely disambiguate these links to go to the top of the article, essentially directing readers to the wrong location of the article. To not list the redirect going towards the cover in a situation like this would put the editors in a situation where they will most likely "mis-disambiguate" these links to the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]