Jump to content

Talk:Counting Stars

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

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.(non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– Album was barely even popular in the first place. It had only ever been edited four times before the song came along and it's never been viewed more than 500 times in a month. Unreal7 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but neither one is the primary topic, then it is appropriate to have a disambiguation page at the base name. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia:

John Quested may refer to:

--Richhoncho (talk) 15:44, 10 November 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. 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 and reopening as multimove. This has been around for a very long time, so I think it's time to call it, even though this is a non-admin closure. I think it's clear that the proposed move has not garnered enough consensus to go ahead (two support votes from User:BarrelProof and User:In ictu oculi), but there is a groundswell of support for taking it in the other direction to primary topic with five !votes (User:BDD, User:Red Slash, User:Tbhotch, User:Unreal7, User:Cuchullain). There was also the no move !vote from User:Contactman7. So I was tempted to say there was enough support to close it as "move to Counting Stars", but feel it's probably fairer to make that an explicit multi-move request with the associated notification for anyone watching the disambiguation page but not this one. So I'm reopening it below, and all are free to cast support or oppose votes as appropriate. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Counting Stars (song)Counting Stars (One Republic song) – Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB and WP:RECENT. This move was suggested by two of the three editors who commented in the previous requested move discussion, and no opposition was expressed. BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The styling Category:OneRepublic songs is something probably better left to an RM on the band itself. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the only article that could reasonably have this name. All we can really say about the other songs is that they exist, so readers looking for further information on them are going to be disappointed anyway. The hatnote I've just added is sufficient. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But whether other songs are mentioned in albums or standalone articles is irrelevant per WP:DAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of them have articles, and the other, Counting Stars (album) is from July 27, 2010. I don't see recentism being much of a factor there. None of the other items on the dab page have articles or more than passing mentions in any other article. If other notable subjects with this title appear in the future we can deal with it then.--Cúchullain t/c 19:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is a matter of depth of coverage, it may be worth noting that this article that we're discussing has basically no depth of coverage. As far as I can see, it doesn't say what the song is about, and includes no references to reviews by critics (or fans or commentators of any sort). There's nothing here but some boilerplate and chart statistics and a description of a video that's sourced by a link to the video itself. There really shouldn't be such articles that basically say nothing about their topic other than how popular they are. In regard to depth of coverage, it appears to have no established notability. Note that mere inclusion in lists is ordinarily not sufficient to establish notability for topics. This article doesn't seem to reference any reliable sources for anything other than descriptions of positions in lists. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are arguments for AFD not RM. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:52, 14 December 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 3

[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: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


{{requested move/dated}}

– Further to closing the debate above at Requested Move 2, I am reopening with the specified multi-move proposed. See my closing summary above, and the arguments of all participants for the history of this debate. Note that my opening this further request does not constitute a support vote on my part. As the closer of the previous move, I am neutral on the matter. I will also leave a note on the talk page of all participants in the above debate, and also the one extra participant in the first debate in November (User:Richhoncho) to give all who've state an opnion on this in the past a fair opportunity to participate in this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. BOLD aside, caution is a virtue too. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying someone has a "COI" with Google Books is like saying someone has a "COI" with gravity; there's a difference between misreading a source saying "Counting Stars + album" as referring to a different album (still not this song), and accepting the basic principle that the universe exists outside the inevitable WP:RECENT focus of our volunteer editors. Counting Stars in Google Books still isn't overwhelmingly this one song. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gravity forces us to see you here, Google don't, catch the difference? © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK – I also withdraw my prior objection to considering this song the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Counting Stars. Although I am far from satisfied with this article (esp. in regard to a lack of references to significant coverage in reliable sources), that is probably fixable, and the other current contenders at Counting Stars don't look like serious competition. I suspect that in a couple of years we'll need to revisit this question after some more topics with this name appear on Wikipedia, but today is today. I also thank Amakuru for the forbearance. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – this primarytopic claim is extreme RECENTISM. There are at least 4 songs, 3 books, and 2 albums with this title, including several mentioned in WP and linked through the dab page. No reason to increase ambiguity here. Whether to fix the partial (song) disambiguation is a more subtle question, but no need to, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a lot longer than the irrelevant album which no one cares about. Unreal7 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2014 (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.

wrong key?

[edit]

Is E major the correct key for this song?Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Counting Stars. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Counting Stars. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Question? A help request is open: the billboard.com archive link never actually loads anything, just says "Loading". Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church not supported

[edit]

The text notes "...a building beneath an ongoing church congregation on the upper floor..." however there is no indication that the upper floor is hosting any kind of church event. It looks more like a self-help cult rather than any kind of death cult gathering. It would be nice to find out if it is intended to be some kind of cult ritual, but the video itself is non-definitive, so the text is not accurate or, perhaps I should say, not supported by references or citations. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]