Jump to content

Talk:Never Be the Same Again

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

Genre

[edit]

Pop ROCK? ROCK? Guys, ever listened to this track? there wasn't even a freaking guitar. it's R'n'B, simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.73.195 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this isn't a problem anymore, since "rock" doesn't appear on the article page. The infobox lists this song as R'n'B and "dance pop". Heavy Joke (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: not moved per consensus below Tiggerjay (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be the Same Again (Melanie C song) → Never Be the Same Again – Far more successful and well-known song. Ghostface Killah's song didn't even make the Billboard Hot 100, Melanie C's song was number 1 in five countries, and top 10 in several more. Unreal7 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 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 2

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– I proposed the same move three years ago but didn't really give any evidence. Here's some now: Google results show almost 2 million results for "never be the same again melanie c" and just 80,100 for "never be the same again ghostface killah". The pageview statistics also prove that the traffic is overwhelmingly in Melanie C's favour: the Ghostface Killah song rarely gets more than 10 views a day, whilst Melanie C's can be as high as 103.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are notable... Unreal7 (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Misquote of guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "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."

WP:NCM: "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using...."

WP:TWODABS: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." Dohn joe (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCM says, "Unless more than one album (or song) of the same name exists, there is no need to disambiguate any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released more than one album (or song) with the same name." How is that not relevant? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the first two words of WP:NCM are When necessary. When there is a primarytopic, the rest of WP:NCM is not relevant. Most editors understand this. Dohn joe (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it reads, "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" That obviously doesn't apply here where there are two or more songs with the same title, does it? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - there's the misunderstanding. PRIMARYTOPIC only ever applies when there are two or more topics with the same title - that's its entire purpose. If there's just one topic with a given title, we don't disambiguate, even if it's a song or album (see Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious). If there are multiple topics with the same title, and one of them is a song or album, then we do the usual PRIMARYTOPIC tests of usage and significance to see if one is primarytopic. If a song is the primarytopic, we still don't disambiguate - California Dreamin' is a good example. NCM only applies when there are multiple topics and the song or album is not the primarytopic. What NCM says is that if there is one song/album that is not the primarytopic, use "(song)/(album)" to disambiguate. If there are multiple songs/albums that are not the primarytopic, use "(artistname song)" to disambiguate. That's all. That's what When necessary means at the beginning of NCM. I know folks have tried to explain this before, but hopefully this makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the misunderstanding is where you say, "PRIMARYTOPIC only ever applies when there are two or more topics with the same title - that's its entire purpose." but nowhere does that guideline suggest we must have primary topic in every instance, and here is the nub of the objection when it is song -v- song, the number of songs that are substantially long-term, non-genre specific, worldwide and encyclopedic prominent is a lot less than the RMs being listed.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there doesn't have to be a primarytopic. But this song is 16 years old, and still pulls in well over 90% of pageviews for "Never Be the Same Again". That's primarytopic by usage and significance. Dohn joe (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, how many views over what period must a page get to be considered long term primary topic? There are redirects which get more pageviews than this song. Just for comparison I list a couple of songs together with their daily pageviews,
Hey Jude (1,000+) (1960s)
This Land Is Your Land (573) (1940s)
Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive (127) (1940s)

Even the last one is getting twice the page views of this 16-year song, which is probably bolstered by rumors of a Spice Girl reunion concert. The way you are reading it is one page get 1 view a month and the other two views, then the second must be primary topic. AfD would be more appropriate for both. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that 24,000 views per year qualifies. Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: perhaps your question is a rhetorical one, because you've probably been on WP long enough to know there are no fixed numerical rules about when something is or isn't a primary topic. These things are often subjective, which is why we discuss them and have a process for gathering views. Officially, of course, page views should have no bearing on the matter, as it's reliable sources that determine these things, but many people find it useful as a guide. In this case, the fact that Melanie C's song is consistently an order of magnitude higher adds weight to the greater number of Google hits and other indicators mentioned in the nonimation. And since you brought Hey Jude into the mix, I would think that if Melanie C had released a song in 2000 with that title, I would most likely be arguing that the Beatles song was the primary topic. These things are relative after all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, songs are relative, so we have a couple of editors who shout "page views" as if there is no tomorrow, shout "chart statistics" when it is a song article (subtle difference that nobody seems to notice). We have editors who insist on "primary topic" in every and each discussion irrespective of any thing else, we have editors who ignore the bits of "primary topic" that don't suit them, ditto "Naming conventions, music" I also checked for reference some articles about "older people" Tutankhamun, Woodrow Wilson, and Frank Sinatra all getting over 7000 hit PER DAY. Take this song title, how long before another song with the same title becomes a hit and we have to move this one back to Melanie C? It's not as if adding Melanie C is misleading anybody, is it? Just another pointless and time wasting RM.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not pointless at all. Quit using crystal ball, it's stupid. Unreal7 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not me with the crystal balls. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Take this song title, how long before another song with the same title becomes a hit and we have to move this one back to Melanie C?" - that is the crystal ball argument. Unreal7 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your nomination assumes this title will be "long-term significant." The crystal ball is in your hands, so to speak, I merely said you cannot assume it will be long-term significant. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been long-term significant for 16 years. Unreal7 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not what was agreed in 2013, again, your nomination, which was opposed then. Again, I state, Never Be the Same Again (Melanie C song) is unlikely to never be moved again, can you guarantee if it is moved it won't have to be reverted in the future? --Richhoncho (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I can't, and you can't guarantee vice versa, but it's the primary topic right now. Quit using the crystal ball garbage. By the way just because something was opposed once before doesn't mean it can't have the opposite outcome later (e.g. Thinking Out Loud, Shut Up and Drive). Unreal7 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Never Be the Same Again. 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) 01:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Never Be the Same Again. 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) 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Never_Be_the_Same_Again&oldid=1205152270"