Talk:Another Love (Tom Odell song)

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: move. -- tariqabjotu 17:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Another Love (song) → Another Love – The page "Another Love" redirects to an album that has nothing to do with itself. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If moved then Another Love → Another Love (disambiguation) since I added to it. No opinion on the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – Disambiguation pages do not work if they only have one page. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment there's more than one page listed at the disambiguation page -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support No other target with an article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:43, 24 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The song melody sounds like another melody

Is it just me? Or is there a connection from this song to the Paul Kelly track 'Brobdingnagain' from his album Soundings in Film (2001)? The guitar refrain from Kelly's instrumental track seems remarkably similar to the melody of 'Another Love'. I have looked around the internet but found nothing so far. Stephenjh (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Articles moved as proposed. Although participation is borderline, there is a three-to-one margin in favor of the proposed move, and a reasonable argument of genericism supporting it. bd2412 T 18:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another Love → Another Love (Tom Odell song)
• Another Love (disambiguation) → Another Love

– no one "Another Love" more notable than all the others combined. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Such a generic nondescript title cannot be more notable than all others. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Usage stats show that this article is viewed far more often than all the other topics combined:

  • Another Love (this article): 4,665 views this month
  • Another Love (Stories song): 139 views
  • Another Love (disambiguation): 85 views

None of the other uses of "Another Love" has an article. That means that this article got 4665/4916, or 95% or views this month. Dohn joe (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, would we expect otherwise? This is why we have WP:RECENT, Tom Odell is a highly recent artist. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is an essay on article content. WP:DISAMBIGUATION is a guideline that tries to get our readers to the article they're looking for quickest. Dohn joe (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENT bears on the first half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:DISAMBIGUATION is about disambiguating. No one looking for (Tom Odell song) is going to increase their mobile bill by the (Tom Odell song) article they are looking for being titled (Tom Odell song). Everyone else (like BB King fans and so on) will be increasing their mobile bills by the current set up. In any case there'll be another "Another Love" song along soon enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1. No one looking for the (capital of France) article would be harmed if the (capital of France) article were titled Paris (capital of France). But we don't do that because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is usage + significance. Here, where there is no long-term significance to worry about - only rock and pop songs - the usage stats are our best guide. They say that only 5% want (Stories song) or even the dab page - which is all the uses combined.
2. Sorry, wrong. Because this is the most popular usage of "Another Love" on WP, some significant percentage of people will simply type "Another Love" into the search box and hit enter without scanning the results, looking for the Tom Odell song. Those people currently go straight to the article they sought. The RM will make it harder for those readers - and increase their mobile bills, apparently. BB King fans will be disappointed that their song article doesn't exist in any event. Dohn joe (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As half a dozen times before, Paris isn't a song by the band Capital. Would you please stop using cities as examples in song/album naming discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an analogy. If you prefer to avoid the substantive points, that's fine. Dohn joe (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom, WP:SONGDAB, and WP:DAB. Disambiguation is about topics, not articles; it doesn't matter whether the titles of the other articles are "Another Love" or not, or whether the topic of an article is the primary topic of the article or a secondary topic discussed within the article. We should also generally be skeptical of assuming primary topic status for WP:RECENT works, and especially for those in the domain of popular music, as the popularity of music tends to be volatile and fleeting. We should consider long-term significance, not short-term popularity. There are about 10 other candidate topics on the dab page, and this particular song is only a year old and has no obvious significance. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The statistics given above to oppose the move only proves that 4665 landed on the page - NOT that they found the page they were looking for. Lies, damn lies and statistics! --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with that to an extent. Would you agree that only 5% of the people searching for "Another Love" landed on the Stories song and the dab page combined? Isn't that somewhat useful? Dohn joe (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  Why send ANY readers to the wrong article when it is unnecessary? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  It is impossible to send 100% of readers to the right article 100% of the time. The idea behind WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to maximize the number of readers going to the right article. Each change we make shuffles around the "rights" and the "wrongs". For this article, there is some percentage of people for whom the current setup is the "right" setup, and for whom we would be making it harder if we move the base title from this song to the dab page. There is some percentage of people for whom the reverse is true. The question is which percentage is bigger. We know that very few people wind up at the dab page currently. To me, that suggests that the current setup is better for a larger percentage of readers than the proposed setup. Dohn joe (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am finding it impossible to discuss this with you. Your arguments are illogical. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please explain the logical flaws you see. I obviously find it quite logical. :) Dohn joe (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Another Love (Tom Odell song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007061641/http://www.fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/626/ to http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/626/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)