This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
If an editor believes that the Moody Blues song is no longer the Primary Topic for this title, the correct action is to use the WP:RM process to request a move of this article to a disambiguated title, and if the move is accepted then to change all the existing incoming links which are intended for the Moody Blues song. The incorrect thing to do is to "move" this page by a "cut and paste" operation, put a disambiguation page at this title, and leave all those links broken. I have reverted, and added a hatnote to direct readers to the stub article for the 2013 song. PamD 11:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. No evidence or analysis was provided that the Moody Blues song is no longer the primary topic. This can certainly be revisited if the release of the Super Junior song makes a huge splash, but please note, as linked below, Wikipedia:Recentism. To answer the question posed at the bottom, the reason is that we look to certain metrics to establish whether something is the primary topic, such as how many other article link to it, its traffic (how many people coming to Wikipedia are looking for it, as opposed to other topics by the same title), and the prevalence of citations to it in reliable English language sources. Accordingly, a subsequent discussion would likely focus on evidence that other similarly named topics people might be looking for by the same title when they enter the name into a search are not eclipsed by this one. The point of having a primary topic is to maximize the goal of the most people landing on the topic they are actually trying to access, with the least amount of complication, i.e., reaching it in a "single click", rather than having to search for it among other entries on a disambiguation page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose Because of a single that hasn't even been released yet? No, I don't think so. Better to revisit this later. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Still appears to be primary topic. (And if the unreleased Japanese single by the obscure Korean band mentioned in the hat-note is the one alluded to by BDD, I'd agree that it would probably continue to be the primary topic) --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably because the newly-created (today) dab page at Blue world, if cleaned up thoroughly, would include nothing to detract from the songs status as primary topic. PamD 18:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
But the other song has the exact same title, "Blue World". Why does the other article need disambiguation and this doesn't? Raykyogrou0(Talk) 04:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.