Talk:Filthy (song)

Category:Cultural depictions of Steve Jobs?

Is Category:Cultural depictions of Steve Jobs really applicable? Sure, perhaps inspired by Jobs, but not really a depiction of him, right? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

All the publications I've read say he "channels Steve Jobs", "Steve Jobs-like". This one says "dressed as Steve Jobs." It's in-between. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

But dressing "like" someone is not depicting them. The music video is not about Jobs. I've removed the category for now, and we can always add back if consensus dictates inclusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2018

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: not moved. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Filthy (song) → Filthy – This may come as somewhat of a surprise, but there does not seem to be another subject called "Filthy" on Wikipedia, not even on the dab page for "Filth". JE98 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JE98: Oppose: Currerntly filthy redirects to filth; to most people that is the meaning of "filthy", not an obscure popular song. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Sure, if the space is available, why not? We can include a hat note directing readers to Filth, if that's what they are searching for. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The song hasn't even been released yet. I think we should see how much coverage it gets after its release before we decide on a move to Filthy. I would bet that the majority of search hits currently for Filthy is for the dab page at Filth. st170e 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @St170e: Just an FYI, the song has been released (I've been listening to it on Spotify). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: my apologies, I read 'upcoming studio album'. I'll strike that, but I think the most sensible thing here is to wait and see the coverage that the song gets. st170e 23:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@St170e: No worries, and sounds good! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support the title is avaiable Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• What about Filthy! and Filthy (album)? Wait to see the success of this song before deciding if this is the primary topic for "Filthy". —  AjaxSmack  01:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• @AjaxSmack: I have to be honest, I didn't even see those two article when I searched if there was anything else. I, quite frankly, would support the deletion of those pages since they are highly unsourced material. JE98 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per AjaxSmack's discovery of two other similarly named musical pages. But the primary would be Dirty, which itself redirects to Dirt. In other words, From dust-to-dust, via redirects. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - it should remain a redirect to filth, which would be the primary topic for people using such a search term. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTADICT and practically speaking, few if anyone is going to be looking up the dictionary meaning of "filthy" on WP. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I was hesitant at the start and leaned towards oppose, but with the current state of the article and the sheer amount of coverage the song has received, I am now in favour of making this the primary topic. It goes without saying, but a hatnote to filth should be implemented if the move is successful. st170e 01:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Normally, no, commercial products should not be easily allowed to supplant standard English words. To do so is to give into to their clever promotional marketing. However, some words are less important than others, filthy is not a word commonly used is scholarly works. The popularity of the topic is not really a concern, as competent search engines know how to respond. NB. my first preference for the most reader friendly title would be Filthy (Justin Timberlake). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

changing to Oppose per User:SNUGGUMS, and because Filthy! is relevant, terminal punctuation is too-small a SMALLDETAIL. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose nom didn't see Filthy! and Filthy (album), there's also a double-A-side with "Filthy", peaking at number 39 for Saint Etienne in 1990 see redirect Filthy (Saint Etienne song). Instead Move Filthy (disambiguation) over baseline or redirect to dirt. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Filthy! is irrelevant per WP:SMALLDETAILS
  • Filthy (album) is very obscure.
  • Filthy (Saint Etienne song) is even more obscure (it's a redirect you just added)
  • All this adds up to a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and reason to Support, not Oppose, the proposal. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now as recentism. There is the "Filthy!" album as well as the concept of dirt, too soon to say whether this is a more likely search term for that name than either of these terms. Try revisiting after 6+ months or where it can more accurately be assessed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 13 January 2018 (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.

2nd week fall to no.29

it fell to number 29 in its second week in the US