Talk:Waiting for Love (Avicii song)

Requested move 4 March 2016

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: Moved to "Waiting for Love (Avicii song)". (non-admin closure). As pointed out by several editors, WP:Recentism to make this the primary topic over older songs that charted higher based on page views. Current disambiguation is not precise enough as there are other notable songs with this name. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– This song was a worldwide smash. Neither of the albums are notable in the slightest, except maybe (and that's a very strong maybe) in their countries of origin. One of the albums doesn't have a single reference and the other has one, as well as a non-hyperlinked one. The song has had 32,575 views in the last 60 days; I doubt either of the albums have even had that number since their creation.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose another day, another RM wanting to ambiguate something contrary to WP:NCM. If anything this should be at Waiting for Love (Avicii song) so fans of Avicii can find it more easily, and people looking for the various other songs can find theirs. And as to "worldwide smash", what does "US Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles (Billboard) 10" mean? Does that mean real chart 110? In contrast the 1991 Waiting for Love (Alias song) was a US No.13 on the real chart and a No.4 in Canada, wheras Avicii was a No.49 in Canada. Isn't this bloated 2015 song article the living definition of WP:RECENT? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but you're the living definition of delusional.

"If anything this should be at Waiting for Love (Avicii song) so fans of Avicii can find it more easily, and people looking for the various other songs can find theirs."

I just explained that almost 100% of viewing traffic is for the Avicii song, and yet you have never-ending this fixation that, regardless of blantant facts, songs should never be allowed to be the primary topic.

It was a worldwide smash by the way - I love how in your world that only seems to apply if it charted highly in the US.

Did you seriously just create another song's article so that it could negate this song's chance of being the primary topic? Why do you never get that existence and notability ARE NOT THE SAME THING? You're using the same idiotic arguments as you did for Shut Up and Drive, Thinking Out Loud and numerous other songs. Unreal7 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than all the above, please explain to me how a No.110 hit is more notable than a No.4 hit? en.wp is not a pop blog responding to current pop hits, but an encyclopedia meant to cover music from the beginnings till now. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think a song is only a hit if it charted highly in the US? Alright then.... Unreal7 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support clear primary topic. sst✈ 03:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By which half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does this 2015 song displace all the other topics combined? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCM. Another fine example of ignoring that primary topic titling requires stability and long-term notability. The fact that the Alias song was only recently created shows how quickly the notability bus leaves the station – because it’s notability dated from 1991 nobody thought to create an article, but a 2015 song, well, guys, that’s long-term notable because – urm, it’s current and it’s Aviici and, of course, nobody is ever going to use such an obscure title as "Waiting for Love" again. ‘Nuff said. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I say that. You're using WP:CRYSTALBALL. Unreal7 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NCM. Massive primarytopic by usage: see here. The Avicii song gets 97 percent of pageviews (!?!?), not including the two articles that were created yesterday - but including the dab page itself. Long-term importance is not an issue for any of these topics. If the new articles somehow rocket up the usage chart, we can revisit, but for now, why throw up a massive roadblock to our readers and editors? Dohn joe (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having (Avicii song) on an Avicii song is a "massive roadblock? Someone will see Avicii song and stop? If anything this helps mobile users. Plus look at this artists songs - almost every single one duplicates the titles of earlier decades. As most pop songs do. Are they all "massively roadblocked"? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are the most pointless I've ever seen. By your logic Let It Be should be Let It Be (The Beatles album) because of Let It Be (Labrinth song). Unreal7 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not a helpful response (nor is the one above). Keep things WP:CIVIL. Dohn joe (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments. Firstly, before a RM is suggested isn’t it onerous on the nominator to check the facts? If it’s not then I probably was a little too virulent in my oppose, but having now established there is at least one more notable song topic called “Waiting for Love” we need to look at an examine all of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and for me the relevant part is:-

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

I also quote from WP:NCM, part of which is:-

Unless more than one album (or song) of the same name exists, there is no need to disambiguate any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. Disambiguate albums and songs by artist and not by year unless the artist has released more than one album (or song) with the same name.

I draw a conclusion from this that where there are two or more songs with the same title, then all should be disambiguated fully UNLESS it is likely to be a primary topic for a number of years. This is not one of those cases, 97% of this month’s usage statistics do not confer long-term significance. It's just a place-holder for the next boyband/pop band who has a hit with the same common phrase but different song - then off we go again, with more RMs, more aggravation, and for what purpose?--Richhoncho (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to clearly state that the primary topic is the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear primary topic by the page view statistics; all the other articles are comparatively quite obscure. The vast majority of readers searching for or clicking on the term want this song; we shouldn't go out of our way to send them to a dead end instead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Calidum ¤ 17:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move the page please. Unreal7 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes it look like a "vote". You're the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No clear primary topic. A "worldwide smash" that didn't make it to number one in any country except Austria, Hungary, Norway and Sweden? Really? Just looks like WP:RECENTISM. And rename to Waiting for Love (Avicii song). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another person who thinks worldwide smash means number 1 everywhere. It is NOT recentism, because all the other subjects have ZERO notablity. Unreal7 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I do think it means more than number 1 in a handful of small countries! Clearly other editors think the other subjects do have notability, since four of them have articles! This is purely your POV, nothing more. You wouldn't happen to be a big Avicii fan would you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence and notability aren't the same thing. Unreal7 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those articles are deleted at AfD, then yes, they are exactly the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: the nominator has also blanked Waiting for Love (JJ Lin album) an article from 2008, and Waiting for Love (Shujaat Khan album) and removed from Waiting for Love dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all, as far as I can tell. @Unreal7: You need to stop this disruptive, POV behaviour. You're skating on very thin ice here. You cannot start blanking pages to support your POV on an RM discussion. Whether these other subjects are notable enough for articles can be discussed elsewhere, but not until this RM is over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course, per WP:PRIMARY as the obvious primary topic. With all the due respect, alternatives are actually very obscure, and both Waiting for Love (Shujaat Khan album) and Waiting for Love (JJ Lin album) appears to be actually non-notable. 97 percent of pageviews is a clear enough number, and in terms of reliable coverage, long term significance and as long as we are talking about comparable subjects, commercial success the Avincii song has basically no competition. The alternative articles appear to be helpless stubs consisting of one or two sentences, their subjects barely exist and maybe have obscure, borderline notability, but the Avincii song actually is the only topic which has a solid claim of notability, and the only topic our readers really care about and visit. Cavarrone 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very recent song. Also, the title itself is too generic to associate with one artist (or singer). George Ho (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nominator blanked Waiting for Love (film). I have unblanked it. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the reader is better served by a precise title and a disambiguation page when there are so many songs and albums by the same title. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2016 (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.

New Section???

maybe a section on the meaning of the song? just an idea. Stanley Keeler (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Du. ? Spiegelbild? soviel zweit zum überlegen habe ich eigentlich nicht]:

ja es war tatsächlich nachrichtenmagazin spiegel, wo ich mir sicher zu begonnen habe, dass die redakteure wussten, dass ich schonmaldawar[e] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A549:5903:0:B56E:B26D:8732:26F4 (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]