This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna (entertainer) 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.
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.
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 move the Madonna song to Lucky Star (song) and the disambiguation page to the plain title, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. On an English Wikipedia, a song by a very notable English speaking singer is eclipsed by a foregin language series that has never been licensed in English.--十八 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. There are several different links to Lucky Star besides the one mentioned above. No reason that this song should be the primary link. That would probably be meaningful only to Madonna fans. ●DanMS • Talk 01:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Reject And moving the manga here would not only be meaningful to Lucky Star fans? Fact is, Madonna is more popular with English-speaking audiences than a non-licensed manga. --Guess Who 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll point out that one fansubbed version of Lucky Star has been getting 40,000 downloads per episode. I'm not saying that the manga should be the main page, I'm saying the disambiguation page should be. — PyTom 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And I'm saying that a top-5 Billboard single by an artist who has sold about 150 million albums is more notable. There's only two particularly notable Lucky Star articles, having a link from one to the other is sufficient. --Guess Who 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
i wasn't even born in 1983
Support. Users are not looking for an old Madonna song when they type in Lucky Star into the search box.--CLS 06:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you need a primary page for, anyway? Why not just make the link point directly at the disambiguation page?
Support:: True that a song by Madonna is more meaningful to the general american audience, however, this is a relatively old song (and it's just one song) and Lucky Star (manga) is a current ongoing and popular show and franchise, meaning it is much less likely for someone to search for Lucky Star (song) instead of Lucky Star (manga) presently. In my opinion Lucky Star should redirect to Lucky Star (manga) while the franchise is still in production, and be redirected to the disambiguation when all the hype is concluded, but I guess redirecting to the disambiguation at this time is reasonable as well. --AnY FOUR! 04:46, 27 July 2007 (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.
how do I update the notes field then? I've found a reference for both the 1st and 2nd releases of Lucky Star in the UK detailing chart positions and cover art (Scrub inc (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
The source is Record Collector Magazine, Feb 1996. The Complete Madonna Discography. It was initially released in September 83 and the 7" is one of the rarest Madonna collectables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrub inc (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How can Lucky Star be the last single from the album when it was released in November 83 and Borderline was launched in Feb 84? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
www.madonna.com, Madonna's own site says the release date is 8th August '84 for the US release which would make sense that it's the last release after Borderline and the fact that it delayed the release of Like A Virgin which annoyed Madonna
"Lucky Star" was released as its own single in August 1984. Madonna is an American act, therefore her American single date chronology should be paramount on these articles. Furthermore, as someone listed above, her own website acknowledges the US release date over whenever it was supposedly released in the UK. Ultimately, the Madonna album single order should go like this: Everybody (1982), Burning Up (1983), Holiday (1983), Borderline (1984) and Lucky Star (1984). Lucky Star has no business being credited as a 1983 single behind Holiday. – The Real One Returns (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
In line with the above comment, the opening paragraph is incorrect:
"Lucky Star" is a song by American pop singer Madonna from her debut studio album of the same name. Originally released in the United Kingdom on September 8, 1983, by Sire Records, it was the fourth single from the album.
The US discography should lead for consistency, with references to the UK discography afterwards. It was the second release from the album in the UK but the fifth and final release in the US after Borderline (which is also incorrectly catalogued). It's re-release in April of 84 in the UK is the only instance of it being a fourth release from the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
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. This is another RM split down the middle, and because the guidelines for disambiguation are not specific as to whether a sub-primary topic can exist, I can give no more significant weight to one side than the other. Perhaps consensus will be clearer if/when the guidelines are clarified. —Darkwind (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. If BJ song were as notable as Madonna's, or even as notable as A with B, I'd support it. Don't use your "PRIMARYSONG" argument because you know that that doesn't work with me. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 15:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
He's opposing your readings of those pages, that's all. There's no reason that "Use further disambiguation only when needed" should be read separately from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and interpretations of "covered by Wikipedia" vary. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: Can you cite where in Wikipedia is stated that a comment by any user can and will be ignored because you request to do so? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 01:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:SONGDAB: When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" (such as Anthrax (band) or Off the Wall (album)). Use further disambiguation only when needed (for example X (American band), X (Australian band)). Unless multiple albums of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but Off the Wall (Michael Jackson album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist releases multiple albums with the same name. When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)".
Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.
In any case, this is a Madonna song, and no source ever would describe it as "Lucky Star" -Madonna as plain Google and print Google show, the name Madonna is always provided when refering to this song. Removing -Madonna produces non-Madonna "song Lucky Star" (not surprisingly). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You can copy-paste the quotes you like, you won't prove that these RM guides say what you said: that my comment should be ignored, thus, it should be deliberately not considered into the final argument(s) or decisions, because that's the meaning of "ignore". If you didn't mean to say that, use the correct verb the next time. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 03:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Calm down, friends. IIO is free to say that X argument is bad and shouldn't count, but no admin worth his or her salt is going to throw out a vote just because of that. --BDD (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. primarytopic says, 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. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can be a weak guideline for topics named "Lucky Star". There is more than one song of the same name, and the guideline is vague about precision, recognition, and concision. Perhaps use WP:AT instead? --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I need to rewrite this, my point was that primarytopic is useless for things as transient as songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Current title may be recognizable to Madonna fans. However, adding "Madonna" in the title is precise enough and eliminates ambiguity. Criteria for "primary topic" are irrelevant to the titling in this case. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Lucky Star (Madonna song) is the primary topic for Lucky Star (song), so the latter should redirect there. Which conveniently means less cleanup will need to be done after the move, though it would be nice if links were changed to more specifically include the singer's name. This song seems to get a lot more airplay today than some of her later songs that were much bigger hits in the 80s. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a helpful point from User:Wbm1058; there is no burning rush to repoint the redirect with moves like this. However incoming links from templates can fix 30 or 50 pages at a time. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Wbm1058 that this is the primary topic for Lucky Star (song), so there shouldn't be a move. If I said Pelé (footballer) was the primary topic for Pelé, that would be an argument for moving the former to the latter, not vice versa. Sub-primary topics are neither supported nor contradicted by policy, though in practice they've been used for years without any evidence of detriment. Like many such PDAB-esque requests, this is a dubious solution in search of a problem. --BDD (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
User:BDD, could you please provide an example of a sub-primary topic that isn't a song/band/album to WT:DAB. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Tbhotch, I presume you mean Thriller (Michael Jackson album), the issue with that was that some editors had placed the album into MOS:ALBUM in conflict with WP:NCM, a RM is required when an article title conflicts with a titling guidline.
No, the request to User:BDD is purely to provide an example that "in practice they've been used for years without any evidence of detriment" outside of songs/albums/bands. Hence the question. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I can't think of any offhand. There's something about musical topics, or at least Wikipedia's coverage, that seems to make this more prevalent in that area. And when it's a choice between two songs by relatively obscure bands, sure, I'm not saying we have to have a sub-primary topic. But when we're pretty certain that more people are looking for Michael Jackson's Thriller or the Kiss with excessive stage makeup versus other albums or bands of the same name, sub-primary topics are a service to our readers. Creating false equivalencies makes little sense—allowing the sub-primary titles to redirect to a longer title makes even less. --BDD (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
User:BDD, okay so when said that sub-primary topics have been used for years without any evidence of detriment then you only have evidence from songs/bands/albums? That is my impression too, though obviously I disagree that there is no evidence of detriment. Either way that is the nub of the issue. This is a songs/bands/albums problem.
I'd agree that there's something about musical topics, or at least Wikipedia's coverage, that seems to make this more prevalent in that area. I can only guess that the "something" is the transient nature of pop. The latest girl band hit gets an article and Fred Astaire or Frank Sinatra or Donna Summer song is a redlink.
But in any case the issue here is that a few song/albums editors want to go to WP:PRIMARYALBUM and WP:PRIMARYSONG while en.wp fully disambiguates films, footballers, and everything else. I think this can only be solved by solving it. Either we all agree give songs editors different rules to rest of the project, or we don't. To just continue having these stupid RMs is detrimental. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC (this is the PRIMARYTOPIC song named "Lucky Star"). No policy/guideline based reason to move. "A dubious solution in search of a problem" -BDD. --B2C 05:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing I wrote stated, implied or suggested that Lucky Star has a primary topic. This discussion is no more about about the term Lucky Star than it is about the term Paris. This discussion is about the term Lucky Star (song), and, specifically, whether the term Lucky Star (song) has a primary topic. --B2C 18:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
@B. My reading of primary topic is that it would not include disambiguation, i.e. in this case the (song). You are now claiming that a primary topic can be disambiguated. If I am wrong can you enlighten me? Thanks. NB I also note what you are saying is opposed by WP:SONGDAB which clearly states two or more songs should be disambiguated Title (Artist song). --Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This all comes down to a clash of readings. B2C and I say there can be sub-primary topics; you and IIO say there can't be. I don't think you can deny that we've had them in practice. But policy doesn't specifically authorize or forbid them. And our readings of WP:SONGDAB really hinge on the meaning of "Use further disambiguation only when needed." For you, that seems to mean whenever there are two or more songs of the same name. For me, and presumably for B2C, there's no reason to read that in isolation from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
But SONGDAB also reads, Unless multiple albums of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. which I understand and follow. I hesitate to repeat the part of primarysource (which I think is derived from NPOV) about long term significance... Hardly relevant for the songs being discussed here? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily mean multiple albums do need to be disambiguated further. That just contradicts the position, expressed by some editors in these discussions, that an artist name should always be present, perhaps for clarity's sake. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. In an instance where there are two or more titles with the same name it clearly says ALL albums (or songs etc) should be disambiguated by (artist album). I cannot understand why there is such opposition. I would agree with you there is plenty of guidance against always attaching the artist's name, but that's a different argument. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Ditto per Richhoncho and half a dozen editors supporting non-ambiguous disambiguation. In an instance where there are two or more titles with the same name both the first paragraph of WP:DAB and WP:SONGDAB both clearl says ALL albums (or songs etc) should be disambiguated by (artist album). I also cannot understand how anyone can read the currently guideline any other way. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Support per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"; "Lucky Star (song)" doesn't disambiguate enough as there are other songs, thus WP:SONGDAB doesn't support "Lucky Star (song)" as the title (because we should "use further disambiguation [...] when needed"). And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply since "Lucky Star" is an ambiguous term (and there's nothing in PRIMARYTOPIC regarding ambiguity among a subset of topics covered by Wikipedia). But keep "Lucky Star (song)" as a redirect to Lucky Star (Madonna song) per WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS, since there are people arguing for the relative importance of that song with respect to the others; and the only people likely to use that artificial disambiguated title are those who already know the outcome of this discussion. Diego (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Typically it's a good idea to add additional disambiguation when there are ambiguous articles in the same category, in the case songs, it feels way overboard in this particular case. We have one song that was an international megahit, still very widely known after thirty years, and a comparatively obscure single that gets barely more than a mention in what sources cover it. There are exceptions to every rule and this is one of them; we don't need to invent reasons to send readers to dab pages.--Cúchullaint/c 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
In which case, as the notability is because it is "an international megahit" single shouldn't the title be Lucky Star (single) according to that rationale? Fortunately it is the song which is notable, not the plastic it was sold on and WP reflects this. This is basic song 1, 2, 3, but it eludes most people. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I could have been clearer. As you appear to understand, it's the song that's notable. In this case, it's so well known compared to other comers that it's a bit silly to think readers would expect to find anything else under the title "Lucky Star (song)".--Cúchullaint/c 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Cúchullain I am sorry you did not understand my comment. I was merely commenting that for most people single = song and vice versa. This is patently silly. Your argument is based on the bit of plastic sold well. This is not actually about the song, the song is what we listen to, the other is a format.
The underlying problem is that if those that think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies without the provisos contained in that guideline to songs and albums we will be inundated with these RM discussions with "my band sold 1 more copy than your band" without forgetting the moving of articles (and not dealing with the piping!). Notability, in music, is pretty much in the ear of the beholder. There will be complete ignoring and ignorance of WP:RECENT because WP:IAR applies when it suits the editor. This is why WP:SONGDAB should be adhered to in all but the most exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of them. Finally, what nobody is considering is actually how "primarytopic" is a 30 year old song. It's now probably older than most people interested in music and this is an esoteric WP discussion which nobody else is interested save some WP editors with bees in their bonnets.
Another thing, in a paper encyclopedia, this article would always be on the same page, headed up "Lucky Star" However, in the index it would clearly state (Madonna song) to differentiate. The article name space is often the index rendition of the name. Unless there is technical solution I can't see how we can avoid disambiguation in the namespace.
Finally, would you walk up to somebody and say, "Do you like Lucky Star?" Of course not, it has no context, you would say, "Do you like the Madonna song, Lucky Star?" Just plain common sense.
As you can see I am not trying to re-write the guidelines, I just want more editors to adhere to them more closely. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
For the third time, my argument is that the song is so much more significant than the fairly obscure alternative that it can be treated as an exception to our general practice of distinguishing song articles from one another. Applying some "plain common sense", I see no evidence that any detectable number of readers are being misled by the title used here since 2007; this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't actually exist.--Cúchullaint/c 14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Cuchullain, no one would be mislead by Lucky Star (Madonna song) either. Surely it is beyond question that (Madonna song) is more informative than (song) when Wikipedia covers per WP:DAB a dozen songs called "Lucky Star". Since no one types "(song)" so how does ambiguating a title no one types help? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Madonna doesn't have a monopoly on "Lucky Star", just like she has no monopoly on "Madonna" namespace. Cases like this should always be disambiguated, IMHO. This way, the reader will know exactly what they are getting before they even click on the mouse. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
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.