Talk:Wait on Me

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

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 5 July 2017

The following is a closed 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: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait on Me (Rixton song) → Wait on Me – None of the topic listed on the dab page have an article except this song. 100.37.51.244 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@100.37.51.244: Queried move request. If move, the first move Wait on Me to Wait on Me (disambiguation). All 3 of the links in page Wait on Me look valid to me. Is Wait on Me (Rixton song) a dominant meaning? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection It was listed as "upcoming" on the original dab. Now it has an article and was No.12 in UK there's no harm in swapping the two pages around. It'll be swapped back in a couple of years when the next "Wait on Me" turns up, but the links will still be right. No major headache of correcting insufficient links when a new entertainment product hits the market as so often happens. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per In ictu oculi's argument; as the initial reasoning states, there is nothing else on the dab page with an article. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:F172:844C:1F4B:E7EC (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the only article with this title. kennethaw88 • talk 07:56, 9 July 2017 (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.