Talk:Scandalous!

Fair use rationale for Image:Prince Scandalous.jpg

Image:Prince Scandalous.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested 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. 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: Move Scandalous (song) → Scandalous (Mis-Teeq song), No Move Scandalous! → Scandalous! (Prince song) (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

---

• Scandalous! → Scandalous! (Prince song)
• Scandalous (song) → Scandalous (Mis-Teeq song)

– Scandalous (Mis-Teeq song) was moved in April, but can a ! bear this much weight? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Indeed it can (Be Mine! and Headlines!), and so can a question mark (Where Is the Love and Where Is the Love?). Unreal7 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument "indeed it can" might just as well apply to Scandalous!, and yet here we are having an RM discussion. What guideline says a ! is sufficient disambiguation? I've put in a RM at Talk:Be Mine! since the ! isn't consistent in sources, or even used on the CD cover. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Disambiguation by punctuation? It assumes the reader knows the correct punctuation, in which case the reader is probably familiar enough with the contents of an encyclopedic article. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support: 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. WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB supports this. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move of Scandalous!, support move of Scandalous (song). A reader is only likely to add punctuation based on knowledge of a title, not to add it randomly, so anyone looking specifically for "Scandalous!" is probably looking for this article. A hatnote could be useful, but only because of the possibility of confusion between similar names. Omission of punctuation is likely so "Scandalous (song)" is insufficient. Peter James (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move of Scandalous!, support move of Scandalous (song). Peter James makes an excellent point, and one that should be reflected in the naming conventions, and I don't think it is at present. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. You both assume, incorrectly, that anybody looking for Scandalous! will be aware of the exclamation mark. Only those who have already seen the artwork will know this. The rest of us will hear the song on the radio or elsewhere and it will be announced as "Scandalous a song by Prince", rather than "that was Scandalous with an exclamation mark" which is why I supported the move above. Bottom line is music is an aural tradition. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have misread. Anyone looking for "Scandalous!" may enter the title with or without an exclamation mark, so "Scandalous" alone is ambiguous, but those looking for "Scandalous" by Mis-Teeq are unlikely to add an exclamation mark (unlike, for example, different positioning of apostrophes for plural or possessive) so "Scandalous!" is not, as it contains natural disambiguation. Of course there's the possibility of confusion between songs, but that can occur with other similar but distinctive titles and isn't a reason to further disambiguate them. Peter James (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Of course "Scandalous!" will still be listed on the disambiguation page for "Scandalous". Did you intend to say that this song should be referred to without the exclamation mark and moved to Scandalous (Prince song)? Peter James (talk) 21:18, 3 November 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.