Talk:Counting Stars

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.(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]

Oppose - the 2010 Counting Stars (album) may not be as popular, but all the same cannot see any value to readers in further ambiguating this article, it's bad enough that it isn't Counting Stars (One Republic song) when we have other Counting Stars songs on albums. WP:RECENT recognises that a 2013 song is popular in 2013, ..that's the whole point of WP:RECENT, but if it's really WP:PRIMARY in 2 years, then move it then. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:TWODABS :-

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:
John Quested (aviator) (1893–1948), English World War I flying ace

John Quested (producer) (born 1935), film producer and owner and chairman of Goldcrest Films

--Richhoncho (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB and WP:RECENT, move Counting Stars (song) to Counting Stars (One Republic song). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:07, 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

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]

I disagree with this move. The other "Counting Stars" songs do not have a page. There is no need to move it. And if it were to be moved, it would be Counting Stars (OneRepublic song). OneRepublic is one word, not two. Contactman7 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Counting Stars (OneRepublic song) - WP:DAB specifically says that whether other songs have a page is irrelevant. "Counting Stars", song by Michelle Malone from the 1988 album New Experience, SBS (and Best of Michelle Malone), "Counting Stars", song by Sugarcult from the 2004 album Palm Trees and Power Lines, "Counting Stars", song by Augustana from the 2011 album Augustana (album) these taken together mean that Wikipedia does not only cover one song. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 18 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]

Tempted to support (to a title without a space in OneRepublic) as per nom and In ictu oculi, but after looking, this seems like it has primary topic. Support move to Counting Stars. Red Slash 03:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. Support Counting Stars. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The song is less than six months old, so it seems rather WP:RECENT to establish long-term notability, and there are five other Counting Stars on the dab page, so a claim of WP:PRIMARY status seems questionable to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually been out for almost a year. Contactman7 (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article says the video premiered on May 31, 2013, and the song was first released on June 14, 2013. Both of those are less than six months ago. Am I missing something? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's when it was released as a single. The song itself surfaced back in December 2012 as a snippet then officially released in March 2013 with the release of the album. Contactman7 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that's true, the article should be changed to say it. Right now there is no mention of any release earlier than May 31, 2013. (And a "snippet" doesn't sound like something likely to establish much notability.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Counting Stars per Red Slash. This is the clear primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is too WP:RECENT – only about six months old – to claim primary status for a simple and oft-used phrase like "Counting Stars". According to the dab article, there are already at least five other "Counting Stars" on Wikipedia, there will certainly be more as time moves on, and the popularity of songs is fleeting. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:39, 5 December 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]

Support, per Slash. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support like I did before. Unreal7 (talk) 22:02, 16 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

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]

Support as before. Could've easily been the outcome above. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I almost called it that way, but thought it safer to tread carefully, especially as this proposal was rejected in November! Apologies for clogging up the backlog yet again, but hopefully this one will finally be put to bed one way or ther other... — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. BOLD aside, caution is a virtue too. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as before. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before. The song is the clear primary topic; it's much more prominent than the album and none of the other topics even have articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as primary topic. I also commend the close above. Red Slash 00:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - was wrong footed in the original RM by ["Counting Stars" + album] getting 1 result in Google Books and this new song getting none. I see now that CMJ Music "Counting Stars" album review is actually for a different "Counting Stars" album than the one on the dab. That being the case there's a stronger case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not going to oppose a Primary Topic move here. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Google, Inc. is not out owner, and your COI with it is irrelevant for WP:PTOPIC. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:48, 18 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]

Consensus seems clear. Unreal7 (talk) 12:10, 30 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]

Only two of them have their own dedicated articles, one of which is Count the stars.--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support there is only two other articles with the same title, Counting Stars (album) and Count the Stars, both of which are far less notable than this per sources / sales.--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "per sources / sales" :: for how long? Most pop music is ephemeral. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 21 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]

Support. I agree with the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:23, 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?

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

External links modified

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]

External links modified

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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT_nvWreIhg
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502110126/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20140423/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20140423/

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.

? 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

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]