Talk:5 O'Clock (T-Pain song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Songs

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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 1

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.

Since the companion 5 O'Clock move was closed with the statement that the discussion was now consolidate in Talk:5 O'clock (song)#Requested move 2], this companion discussion should get the same treatment. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 O'clock (song) → 5 O'clock (T-Pain song) – relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The page "5 O'clock" is a redirect to "5 O'Clock" which is about a song. So why should this article be called "5 O'clock (song)" if the page with no disambig is about a song too? Ian Streeter (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:5 O'Clock#Requested move.

Support: Makes sense to me :-) In addition, I wonder if perhaps there should be additional action taken to clarify matters, for example perhaps changing the other 5 O'clock to 5 O'clock (Nonchalant song)? Or even perhaps the creation of a disambiguation page if there are other things with the title "5 O'clock" as well? --MsBatfish (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MsBatfish, I actually completely changed my mind. The song by Nonchalant is called 5 O'Clock (I moved the page yesterday) so this should be called "5 O'clock"! THAT'S what it should be moved for! Here, I'll put a new request up. Ian Streeter (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or move to 5 O'clock?
- The song by Nonchalant is called "5 O'Clock" (I moved the page about Nonchalant from 5 O'clock to 5 O'Clock last night, because it's the correct title of the song.), while the T-Pain song is called "5 O'clock". So shouldn't it be fair if you call this just a one-no-need-for-disambiguation page? Because the title of the Nonchalant song is different. Ian Streeter (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song), and 5 O'Clock to 5 O'Clock (Nonchalant song). 5 O'Clock is 5 O'clock is 5 o'clock is a time of day. The songs need disambiguators. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to 5 O'clock (T-Pain song). Disambiguation is needed. 5:00pm is also quitting time, etc. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for disambiguation page Both articles have hatnotes, which is sufficient. -- Jab7842 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this discussion was prematurely closed by Jab7842 (talk · contribs) who then proceeded to move the article to 5 O'clock. As I think anyone reading over this discussion can see, this was premature against the current consensus. While Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, supervoting against a clear consensus is not acceptable. Noetica (talk · contribs) reverted the move of the article. I have just sync'd the talk page back up with the article and am now reverting Jab7842's closure. Please let this discussion go the full week and let an admin close it. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SERIOUSLY. I DON'T NEED THIS PAGE TO BE TITLED 5 O'CLOCK (SONG). CAN'T THE ARTICLES SAY (5 O'Clock, 5 O'clock)? Ian Streeter (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, it might be best for you to calm down – surely whether the article has "(song)" in the title or not isn't the end of the world. To answer your question, my preference would be for a disambiguation page to be set up at 5 O'clock (and have 5 O'Clock redirect there). Then the two songs would be at 5 O'clock (T-Pain song) and 5 O'Clock (Nonchalant song) because the capitalisation of the c is not enough to disambiguate between them when someone is looking in the search box. Not to mention, there is no way that either of the songs is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "5 o'clock". Jenks24 (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can support this proposal as well. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose early move before discussion is closed. Support move to 5 O'clock. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is getting really confusing. Pages are having their names changed & being moved back & forth & before this discussion was even closed yet. At one point it appeared that one of the articles was deleted completely (?). Now apparently some editors think that having one letter capitalized in one title and lowercase in the other is enough for people to easily differentiate? And are proposing removal of the (song) part from the one that has it now? That seems pretty confusing to me. If I was looking up something called "5 o'clock" or "5 O'clock" or "5 O'Clock" (or whatever) I would likely just type in all lowercase (as many people do when typing anything into a search box). I don't know if it it really necessitates a separate disambiguation page, seeing as at present there are only 2 items with the title, but (particularly since both articles are about songs) I don't see why each article title shouldn't have a descriptor, like "5 O'Clock (Nonchalant Song)" and "5 O'clock (T-Pain Song)" (and hat links for the other article on each). MsBatfish (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: Since the original nominator Ian Streeter has changed his proposal to now simply renaming the to article 5 O'clock, I just want to clarify that when I said "Support" above I was supporting his original rename suggestion to 5 O'clock (T-Pain Song), not this newer proposal (for reasons listed above + I agree with Jenks24). Thanks! MsBatfish (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this and all moves involving the component "5 o'clock" (howsoever styled, capped, spelt, abbreviated, supplemented, or otherwise varied) until someone draws together all such articles, shows what they're about, and presents an articulated plan for distributing meaningful and helpful titles among them. And please revert all moves that have not been openly discussed through normal challenges, for any of these articles, especially that have been moved into userspace [sic]; see Wikipedia_talk:RM#Chaos_at_a_nest_of_RMs. Noetica^Tea? 01:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 5 O'clock. We use parenthetical disambiguation only when natural disambiguation is "not possible," according to WP:PRECISION. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail." Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that having a letter capitalized in one and lower-case in another counts as enough of a difference for "natural disambiguation", especially in this case. It is hardly intuitive and many search forms are not case-dependent (or use all lower-case). It could potentially make linking more confusing as well. In addition, the vast majority of readers/searchers would not be able to differentiate solely based on the inclusion/exclusion of the upper-case "C". See WP:COMMONSENSE. Sources outside of Wikipedia use varying capitalizations for both songs, so that makes it even more confusing. MsBatfish (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to editors: WP:ANI request concerning this page and related pages

Editors please note [this request] that I have posted at WP:ANI. Thank you. Noetica^Tea? 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - editors interested in these pages are encouraged to heed the advice of user:Noetica above. Please be clear as to what moves are desired and to what specific titles. It is very difficult to assess consensus when the discussion is all over the map. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Both songs are capitalized as "5 O'Clock" in sources like Amazon and iTunes (except last.fm which has them the opposite way around of what we have now in WP, and amazon.co.uk that has 5 O'clock for T-Pain). They should both be moved and appropriately disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing, that's Move 5 O'clock (song) to 5 O'Clock (T-Pain song) and 5 O'Clock to 5 O'Clock (Nonchalant song). Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move 5 O'clock (song) to 5 O'clock (T-Pain song) and 5 O'Clock to 5 O'Clock (Nonchalant song). Presuming we are clear that the capitalization of "5 O'clock" is correct as it is (if not, change to "5'O'Clock (T-Pain song)" or however it is actually capitalized). Rationale: As I said above, having a letter capitalized in one and lower-case is not enough of a difference to tell them apart.

Personally I couldn't find any other pages titled with some variant of "5 o'clock", although there are many containing the phrase with an additional word. Should we be re-listing these both together at WP:Requested moves? MsBatfish (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the lower-case clock?

Can someone say why this article has lower-case c in O'clock? It doesn't seem to conform to most sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a really good point. It has just always been cased that way in this article, so I think, at least until the recent renaming discussion, everyone probably just assumed it to be correct. I think this page was actually created before the song even came out. T-Pain's own website capitalizes it as "5 O'Clock". This correction would also invalidate the argument above in favour of changing it to "5 O'clock" (without the "(song)") that claimed that the lack of capitalization on the "c" was enough to differentiate it from 5 O'Clock. I will propose the renaming at WP:Requested moves since any name change regarding this article has been demonstrated to be a controversial move. MsBatfish (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Comment I think this can be closed as superceded by a new discussion. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 2

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.

Pages moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– The title of 5 O'clock (song) currently has a lower case "c" for no apparent reason. The artist's website http://revolver.t-pain.net/index2.html along with iTunes, Amazon etc all use 5 O'Clock for the title. 5 O'Clock is already the title of another song. Both pages are songs, so additional precision is necessary in both article titles in order to distinguish them from one another. See: WP:PRECISE. A disambiguation page is not necessary, as there are only these 2 articles with the title 5 O'Clock (all others contain additional words, such as 5 O'Clock Charlie). MsBatfish (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I have not made a "faux pas" by relisting these pages to be moved; I noticed afterwards that the move request discussion at 5 O'Clock does not appear to have been formally closed yet (although there didn't seem to be any consensus). However, I think there is new rationale to consider and that it is a lot less confusing to list these together as opposed to separately. MsBatfish (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This makes perfect sense. Differences in capitalization or punctuation are not enough to disambiguate between titles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just wanted to note that if the article was correctly titled there wouldn't even be a difference in capitalization or punctuation. Just to preemptively dissuade anyone from objecting on the grounds that they disagree with the idea that differences in capitalization aren't enough for disambiguation. :-) MsBatfish (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree completely with MsBatfish and Ryulong. As a side note, it is generally considered 'good form' (for lack of a better term) to wait until the first RM has closed before starting another one for the same article and sometimes new RMs will get procedurally closed for that reason. I hope that's not the case here – the above RM should be closed as it has been going for over a week now and it seems clear to me there is no consensus (plus the above RM is a mess). Hopefully the next passing admin will be kind enough to close the above RM so that it does not become a distraction to this one. Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize the RM discussion hadn't been formally closed until after I posted this one. Also, just in case it matters at all, I noticed that the user who proposed the earlier move request, Ian Streeter, (see also User talk:Ian Streeter) is now banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. MsBatfish (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – this is the only sensible result given the discussion in the previous RM. If you hadn't started a new RM I would have just done it, since the titles are available and have sufficient support in the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support though this will result in a disambiguation page at either "5 O'clock" or "5 O'Clock", since both pages are moving. We have articles called 5 AM and 5pm ... which aren't about time either. As those have hatnotes to 12-hour clock for the time, we should indicate that as well. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether I fully understand you 70.24.248.23 - are you saying that you support the proposed names but you think that then the current pages should be turned into redirects to 5 O'Clock (disambiguation) which would then say something like "5 O'Clock is a time of day, it may also refer to ______ or ______"? Or that we should have hatnotes at each article? Or both? Or neither? Thanks :-) MsBatfish (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per current disambiguation guidance, with no primary topic/usage the primary name becomes a disambiguation page. So pick either "5 O'Clock" or "5 O'clock" or "5 o'clock" (probably this one) and make it a disambiguation page, and repoint the other base title to it. From the disambiguation page, link to the two song articles, and the time article, with see also sections for 5AM and 5PM. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ideal to me. We'll give this discussion a few more days to see if anyone has any further input, but so far it looks like everyone is in agreement about the renaming moves and the proposed names, and I don't see why anyone would disagree with the disambiguation page. MsBatfish (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support The suggested disambiguation is an excellent way of separating the two pages. Move them both. -Kai445 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Orphaned references in 5 O'clock (song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 5 O'clock (song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "acharts":

From The Fear (song): "Lily Allen - The Fear - Music Charts". αCharts.us. Retrieved 2009-08-28.
From Low (Flo Rida song): "Flo Rida and T-Pain - Low worldwide chart positions and trajectories". aCharts.us. Retrieved December 28, 2007.
From Good Life (Kanye West song): "Kanye West and T-Pain - Good Life worldwide chart positions and trajectories". acharts.us. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
From Bartender (T-Pain song): "T-Pain and Akon - Bartender global chart positions and trajectories". aCharts.us. Retrieved June 30, 2007.
From Alright, Still: "Lily Allen - Alright, Still... - Music Charts". αCharts.us. Retrieved 30 August 2008.
From Alfie (Lily Allen song): "Lily Allen - Alfie - Music Charts". αCharts.us. Retrieved 2009-09-04.
From Drivin' Me Wild: "Common and Lily Allen – Drivin' Me Wild". aCharts.us. Retrieved 2008-02-11.
From 22 (song): "Lily Allen - 22 (Nummer)". Ultratop. Hung Medien. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
From Smile (Lily Allen song): "Lily Allen - Smile - Music Charts". αCharts.us. Retrieved 2009-08-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]