Talk:Good to Be Alive

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There are two valid options on the title of the album page, both of which have some support. I'm going to go with Good to Be Alive (Long John Baldry album); if anyone feels strongly about that page's title, it's probably best to open a separate RM for that. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to Be Alive (disambiguation) → Good to Be Alive
Good to Be Alive → Good to Be Alive (Long John Baldry album)
~~Good To Be Alive → Good to Be Alive (DJ Rap song)~~ Done by someone else, not me. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– I don't think that album is a the primary topic, is it? No one knows this album very much nowadays, and I don't know LJB as much as diehard fans do. Also, Good to Be Alive (album) is redirected to the dab page and deserves to be so because there are more than one. The Baldry album should not be "Good to Be Alive (album)" because primary topic of "Good to Be Alive" is uncertain. Same goes for song by DJ Rap. George Ho (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support move of dab since two articles are currently primary except for an incorrect cap variation. Support Good to Be Alive → Good to Be Alive (album) ~~and Good To Be Alive → Good to Be Alive (song)~~ per WP:PRECISION and WP:NCM -- unless other album/song pages are created in the meantime. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Good 2b Alive; would this justify an intention to leave "(album)" redirected to dab page? --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, no. The spelling variation is sufficient for technical dabbing, and a pair of hatnotes on the albums can bounce users between them efficiently. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I created "Good to Be Alive (Steelheart album)" as a redirect; would this change your mind? --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Only if there were a reason to create it other than to dictate the other move target here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "2b" is too jargon and too (something I cannot describe how less searchable it is) for a common person... and urban, as well. How does it not help change your mind? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Because readers have not needed to reach that article. But let it age for a month or three -- if it gets hits "in the wild" despite being unlinked from anywhere (because readers are using it from the search box or are simply savvy enough to construct it), that would indicate that I'm wrong (which I'm happy to be). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, even typing a number after a word is less likely for an album like this. Sometimes, a user can turn the AutoSearch off for oneself. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my support of the alternate song move, after restoring the old Slash's Snakepit song redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – such an ambiguous title has no primary. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - now "Good To Be Alive is redirected to the dab page. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George, when you change a redirect, you need to repair all the links that are using it in articles. Follow the "what links here" to find them; looks like there may be only one in this case, but you need to fix it, or put the redirect back and wait for someone to do the whole job. Dicklyon (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. I've updated the link page. But not doing everything is not a reason to do nothing. The links to the incorrectly capitalized title needed to be addressed in some fashion. The job is easily splitable among editors who notice it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - oddball capitalization of titles is not how we should disambiguate articles and such a common phrase shouldn't have a primary topic. Joja lozzo 17:43, 20 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.