Jump to content

Talk:It's Time (song)

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

Requested move

[edit]
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 consensus to move. Time to call this one off I think, given that it's nearly a month since there was even a single edit to this talk page. The opposes outweigh the supports, and there's clearly no inherent problem with the current title so looks like a clear no consensus to me. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's Time (Imagine Dragons song) → It's Time (song) – At present "It's Time" redirects to All This Useless Beauty Unreal7 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:BDD, can you please explain how WP:TWODABS applies when there is It's Time (disambiguation)? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chasing the Sun (song) and Girl on Fire (song). Unreal7 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB, I generally believe that the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, the popularity of music is volatile, and new releases often appear with the same names (or strings of lyrics that might be mistaken for a name). Moreover, in this case, there's no assertion of primary status. Also in this case, since the title is a very short and common simple phrase, I suspect that with a minor amount of searching, we would find that there are already several other songs covered on Wikipedia (in addition to the Elvis Costello song and this one) that fit this topic name. IMHO, there is basically negative value in making song and album articles more ambiguous by removing the names of the artists from their titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree with the above. The current name is inline with all policies and is clear and recognizable. There's no value in making article titles more ambiguous and less clear. Plus it causes unnecessarily long and messy arguments over "primary topic" when other songs eventually pop up. However, I would support the "It's Time (song)" being changed to a Disambiguation page. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need to create a dab page at "It's Time (song)". We can just redirect that to "It's Time (disambiguation)" (and I just did). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @BarrelProof: you're right that according to current WP rules, the redirect should be as you say. However, I personally hate that rule. It doesn't make sense to me for a page with a specific title (e.g. "It's Time (song)") to redirect to a more general one ("It's Time (disambiguation)"). It's Time (song) should be its own page, and should contain exactly the set of articles which is in the songs section of the disambiguation page. I can see that there is a maintenance issue with keeping some overlapping duplicated list of ambiguous topics on the two separate pages, but as Wikipedians we're here to serve our readers not just to make our own lives easier.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - firstly WP:PDAB lists only mega-exceptions to WP:SONGDAB such as John Lennon's Imagine. And any single by a major artist like Elvis Costello is more notable than anything by Imagine Dragons - A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. As an example the Elvis Costello single has a full page dedicated to it in this book. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the only song titled "It's Time" that has an article or anything approaching coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. The only thing that comes close is the Elvis Costello song, but that's just redirects to All This Useless Beauty where it's mentioned passingly a few times. As BDD says, we can add a hat note to the Elvis Costello album if we really think readers will get confused, but there's no reason to go out of our way to send readers to disambiguation pages when it's not necessary or helpful.--Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let me just recap a little. There are 2 guidelines and one policy that should be informing our decisions. One guideline is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which clearly says there may be a primary topic which might need disambiguation. There is no compunction disambiguate in the guideline and the examples given suggest there must be significant primary topic. There is WP:AT, a policy, which specifically says that its powers are devolved to WP:MUSIC, which includes the direction that songs and albums should not be disambiguated per primary topic (WP:SONGDAB). When read with WP:DAB which says (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.). Bearing how many songs and albums called "It's Time" doesn't look like we have a choice but to disambiguate by artist and song.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:49, 23 November 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.

Requested move 18 July 2016

[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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It's Time (Imagine Dragons song) → It's Time (song) – We need to revisit this in light of the RfC on song article titles and recent RMs such as this and this. The prevailing consensus has been to use the concise disambiguator – (song) – if there are no other articles on songs by different artists; in this case there are no other song articles titled "It's Time". Cúchullain t/c 17:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the history a bit more closely, I see that there are more topics here than I thought at first glance. There are actually about nine candidate topics listed on the dab page. Some are listed in the albums section rather than the song section of the dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The request doesn't conflict with WP:DAB, as this isn't a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question. This song is not the primary topic of the term It's Time. The question is, given that the title isn't primary and thus needs disambiguation, what should be put in the parentheses? WP:DAB doesn't give specific advice about that, but the consensus at the RfC linked above was that for song articles, "(song)" is sufficient when there aren't any other articles on songs of that title. Currently, this is the only song titled "It's Time" that has an article.--Cúchullain t/c 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:DAB, disambiguation is a matter for "when a potential article title ... refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject". Questions of disambiguation are for questions of topics, not just article titles. If there are nine songs discussed on Wikipedia that have the same title, then there is some ambiguity about "Song Name (song)" as a potential article title, regardless of whether each of those songs are discussed "as the main topic of an article or as a subtopic covered by an article" about a band, album, political campaign, songwriter, etc. The provided rationale appears to conflict with that guideline. I don't think the RFC outcome that you mentioned was intended to conflict with that principle. In this case, most of the articles in question barely mention the songs and contain no information about them other than including them in a list of songs on an album. For such a situation, a hatnote pointing to a dab page seems adequate, and I believe that is the sort of situation the RFC was intended to deal with. But that's not really quite the case here for the Elvis Costello song. That song was also released as a single, and it charted and was the best-seller among the songs on the album, and the article about the album provides some information about who played on the song. We should generally avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING in such a case, since "Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." —BarrelProof (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting point, but I don't agree with your interpretation. Until we have the sources lined up for an article (or at least substantial coverage), we can't really know what's notable. The RfC intended to answer the question, "When a song or album is the only song or album to have a standalone article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page for that name per MOS:DABMENTION, should the article title of the notable song or album include the artist name?" The consensus there was not to include the artist name when there aren't multiple articles.--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that RFC should be interpreted as overriding the overall guidelines about primary topics and disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I don't see it as conflicting with the DAB guidelines. I imagine other participants don't either.--Cúchullain t/c 20:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly conflict with the guideline in the case where "Song Name (song)" fits the topic description of a significant number of different songs and none of them are clearly a "primary song" for that title. This is the case regardless of whether each of the various songs are discussed "as the main topic of an article or as a subtopic covered by an article" about a band, album, political campaign, songwriter, etc. In general, since the popularity of songs is fleeting, it may be better to avoid using only partial disambiguation even when one song seems more popular than the others. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing a conflict. If a song is the only song notable enough to have an article, it's sensible to use disambiguation sufficient to distinguish it from other articles, not other songs that exist but aren't notable. Hat notes can distinguish those. In the hypothetical case that another song is comparably notable and well cited, but for some reason is covered as a subtopic with no article of its own, that might be an exception to the rule, but it would be a rarity. At any rate, it's not the case here at present, as none of the other songs titled "It's Time" have any coverage or sources to speak of.--Cúchullain t/c 04:36, 26 July 2016 (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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:It's Time which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on It's Time (song). 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) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It%27s_Time_(song)&oldid=1207755551"