Talk:Love Drunk

Review

I would like to add a professional review from a Canadian publication (BLARE Magazine) for this album. What do you think? 99.230.239.19 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you link it/give a publication number? It sounds like a good idea from what I've seen on the magazine's website. I couldn't find it there, though. talkingbirds 15:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link for it - http://blaremagazine.com/2009/09/07/album-reviews-7-9-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.239.19 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's not listed as a professional review resource on the Wikiproject Albums, I think it qualifies. You can go ahead and add it to the article. talkingbirds 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How can BLARE Magazine be classified as a professional review resource? 99.230.239.19 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a published magazine. Even though I can't find any evidence..there's nothing incriminating about it as far as I can see. talkingbirds 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. harej 02:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Love Drunk (album) → Love Drunk — It is better if this article MUST move to that link. Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

j3j3j3...pfH0wHz (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Love Drunk just redirects back here. BOVINEBOY2008 04:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @BOVINEBOY2008 yes but it is better and advisable that it must be located here.j3j3j3...pfH0wHz (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm confused, do you support your own move request, or not, because I do. It makes no sense to make a PT article to redirect to an disambiguated article, as that is determining what would be the PT. BOVINEBOY2008 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. There's also Love Drunk (song). Is there some convention for giving priority to the album over the song in a situation like this? PC78 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • @PC78 Yes. I just base it on some other articles like Can't Be Tamed and Can't Be Tamed (song).j3j3j3...pfH0wHz (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure, but Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) and Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) (album). PC78 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

      I think you have to assess it on a case by case basis. For example, Imagine (song) is probably more notable than Imagine (album) (although in that instance it's irrelevant as "Imagine" is a multiuse dab page anyway).  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mild support - as far as I can tell from a very brief look, the album is more notable than the song and the redirect has been from Love Drunk to Love Drunk (album) for some time anyway. We need a hatnote at the top of the page though.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - if there's no indication that the song is more notable, then there seems no reason not to have the album at the base title. Other dab page entries are just word-association - there's no need for a dab page in fact, just a hatnote to the song.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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.