Talk:Sex Bomb

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: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Bomb (song) → Sex Bomb
Sex Bomb → Sex Bomb (disambiguation)

– Only "Sex Bomb" with an article. Unreal7 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The fact that there is only one song article does not justify enough reason to abandon the precise "(song)" dab. "Sex bomb" is of course ambiguous, and it could be a slang for an attractive, sexy person. Sometimes, I do or do not associate the phrase with Tom Jones. --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; no other topic in the encyclopedia has this exact title, so there's no need to disambiguate it. Powers ^T 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the disambig page documents the ambiguity and dispatches to the relevant articles. There's no explanation for why one topic would be considered primary here; the fact that other articles do not use this title notwithstanding. It would be better to fully disambiguate the songs. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose' per Dicklyon. You haven't proved primarity. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oft-used expression, but not to describe the song. So it's too generic to hog an undisambiguated namespace, IMHO. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not hogging if most people looking up the phrase in an encyclopedia are actually looking for the song. Since we are an encyclopedia, we have to take into account that things like songs and albums are more likely to be sought than idioms and common phrases. Powers ^T 13:38, 25 May 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 11 June 2018

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. (non-admin closure) Simplexity22 (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Bomb (song) → Sex Bomb
Sex Bomb → Sex Bomb (disambiguation)

– Hoping that five years later we've seen some sense. Unreal7 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Here is a pageview analysis, although it hardly seems necessary. If a reader goes to the trouble of capitalizing the "B", it's a safe they want the song. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's no other article on WP that could use the title. Station1 (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikt might have the " oft-used expression". That's what Wikt is for. No other article with this title. Re-assess when there is even one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Seems obvious PT. — JFG ^talk 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Although there are multiple pages for songs called "Sex Bomb", this is probably the most well-known "Sex Bomb" out there. Putting (song) next to the title seems redundant. Nowmusicfan2816 ^{any questions?} 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 other songs with this title listed at the DAB page. But none of them has it's own "page"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're right. I visited the page before and didn't notice that. Nowmusicfan2816 ^{any questions?} 13:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This should've been moved yeeeeeeeears ago!. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 14 June 2018 (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.

Whitespace

Yes, credits normally go after track listings, But is there any way to avoid the huge slab of whitespace after the heading for Track listings? Swapping with Credits seems to be an easy fix. 86.187.232.236 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took away the columns formatting. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Smh..."

The edit summary for this removal was "Smh..." Could you kindly explain that one, User:ResolutionsPerMinute? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because in one edit, you introduced four different problems:

You formatted "No." wrong
"No." is inconsistent with "number"
UK success is stated exactly one sentence later
MOS:CITELEAD

Not to be pedantic but this hardly complies with the Manual of Style. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No., number, or #, isn't ever necessarily "wrong", it's a matter of choice and/or consistency?

You're quite at liberty to make something consistent instead of just removing it?

As a single by a UK artist, I'm not sure why UK chart success has to be hidden amongst the other European countries. The existing text could be easily adjusted to "also a top-three hit in Austria, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Spain and Wallonia"?

There are already two sources in the lead section? If you think the source in the chart position table is sufficient, again you are quite at liberty to remove it as superfluous.

But it's great that you're being so helpful and not pedantic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) p.s. what does "Smh..." mean again?[reply]

It's quite bold of you to be make suggestions for me when you yourself make claims that aren't true, like saying using # isn't wrong. (Yes, it is, FYI, see MOS:NUMBERSIGN.) Also, those two sources are in the lead because they aren't sourced in the body. I figured, as an editor since 2007, that you would be aware of this, but I guess I was mistaken. Once again, I'm "shaking my head", which is what SMH means. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're just suggestions. Some editors like to make them as part of collaborative editing. There are plenty of #'s in the leads section of song articles, that should keep you busy. Your poor head... all that shaking must be quite a trial for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least it's good exercise seeing all these errors. Just be thankful I let you keep the whitespace. I'm not as stringent as you probably think I am. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Just be thankful I let you keep the whitespace." Wow. And there was me thinking it was an improvement to the article, as prompted by IP 86 above. I also think the UK chart position should be made clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's stopping you from a little tweak here and there? I reiterate: I'm not as stringent as you probably think I am. I'd be happy to silently clean up anything that doesn't result in multiple MoS violations. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Perhaps I'll just do them one at a time then. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]