Talk:I Loved You

Not only song

This is the only charting song, but Will Smith, Bob and Marcia, Sarah Brightman, and Freddy Cole are better known artists - Blonde currently has no article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, consensus is 2-1 in favor of the only song with an article on the song itself being the primary topic. bd2412 T 19:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear primary topic - it's been already been viewed over 5,000 times this month. The disambiguation page has been viewed 16 times, so anyone who went there was clearly looking for this. See similar situations regarding It's My Birthday, Electric Soul, Hey Brother and I'm Not the Only One. Unreal7 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This should also be moved per WP:BRD, given the undiscussed move to the current situation. Dohn joe (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It's sad this is considered controversial. -- Calidum 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RECENT - is this the absolute majority topic in Google Books? No, why make it so. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone even looked in Google Books? the obvious encyclopedic primary topic if there was one would be I Loved You (poem) one of Pushkin's best known poems, set by several composers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a redlink, so I've replaced the redlink with start a translation of the article on Russian wikipedia. This is exactly the sort of move to "primary topic" en.wikipedia should not be making. How does "a digital download on 30 November 2014 in the United Kingdom" immediately jump to absolutely majority topic spot in an encyclopedia when the artist is unheard of in books? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:Recognizability. Is "I Loved You" recognizable? No it's not because it does not signify content. WP:NATURAL. In general terms songs are referred to in conjunction with the artist's name - NOT separated from it. WP:CONSISTENCY. A large number of songs are titled song (artist song), some unnecessarily so (i.e. nothing with the same name in WP), so it is not inconsistent with naming. The words "specific conventions on article titles" should be read and understood, too. Finally it's primary TOPIC, not primary ARTICLE. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the content need to be unncessarily signfied when there's nothing else it could be realistically confused with? If the other topics were notable enough to have articles then yes, parenthesis would be necessary here. But since nothing else is even notable enough for that, then this is the clear primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the concrete evidence that there's nothing else it could be realistically confused with? Why is it impossible for readers to think it's one of the half a dozen other "I Loved You" topics? "I Loved You" is a well known Harry Belafonte song and some of the other "I Loved You" songs were singles for other artists. Other songs exist. Without the artist this title is imprecise and unrecognisable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Unreal7:. In real life we discuss the song by such and such artist, but in Wikipedia we think we don't need to name the artist. This song is exclusively related to Blonde, why the urgency to remove clarity? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not necessary here, for the reasons I explained above. Unreal7 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity is not necessary? There are other items with the same name, millions of similar named items, but this very in-universe song doesn't need clarification. It does in real life, both you and I would normally refer to the "Blonde" song - I Loved You, here at WP we don't do that, apparently. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on Wikipedia notable enough for this song to be confused with - hence the brackets aren't needed. Look at the album and the three songs mentioned at the top for other examples. Unreal7 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why is there other songs on the disambiguation page with the same name? I also note you have failed to answer IIO's question to you. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my answer to "What's the concrete evidence that there's nothing else it could be realistically confused with?" - because none of the other topics are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them, but this song is, i.e. this is the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that argument is recentism following its own tail and exactly the opposite of what WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC say. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. None of the the other entries on the dab page have their own articles or anything other than a passing reference on any other page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Cuchullain. I also note that In ictu oculi moved this page unilaterally [1] without discussion a few months ago, and knows such moves are controversial, if not clearly against consensus and contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES. This is highly disruptive. --В²C ☎ 20:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Born2cycle look at the top of the talk page. There wasn't even a band article at the time. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there is now. Unreal7 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you think a lack of a band article justifies your unilateral move, In ictu oculi. Regardless, you couldn't possibly have not known such a move - often referred to as "unnecessary disambiguation" - is always controversial. But you did it anyway, perhaps hoping nobody would notice. And nobody did, until now. Such actions are very disruptive. --В²C ☎ 16:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see I Loved You. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are as notable as this. Unreal7 (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2015 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.