Talk:Know My Name: A Memoir

Requested move 28 February 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

• Know My Name: A Memoir → Know My Name
• Know My Name → Know My Name (disambiguation)

– Unnecessary disambiguation; no other article exists with the same title. The pre-existing disambiguation page for two songs with no existing articles should have been moved when this book article was created. Οἶδα (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. It's the only listing on the disambig page with an article, so it's the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – WP:SUBTITLE says "When the most commonly used name is ambiguous, the full title and subtitle might be suitable to be used as a form of natural disambiguation". Here "Know My Name" is certainly ambiguous; the disambig page lists numerous instances covered in WP articles. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of which are songs I have added, and all of which have no existing Wikipedia article. The most commonly used name is not ambiguous here. We don't disambiguate titles based on what articles could potentially be created with the same title. At the present moment, no other article exists. Οἶδα (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dicklyon. There are 13 entries listed upon the Know My Name disambiguation page, with no indication that the memoir had such an imprint upon social discourse that its title's renown overwhelms all other same titles and forces the dab page to adopt the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)". Although the other 12 entries do not have their own Wikipedia articles, each one of those entries is a WP:DABMENTION with its own blue link. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware because I added 10 of those entries, essentially all of which are exceptionally unnotable songs which have no existing article by that name. "an imprint upon social discourse that its title's renown overwhelms all other same titles and forces the dab page to adopt the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)"" is a very dramatic way of saying "primary topic", which I would argue this book is. This is a best-selling book that has been directly reported on extensively across highly notable publications 123456789 10, and was awarded a National Book Critics Circle Award. Since its creation approximately a year and a half ago, this article has cumulatively attained 180,000 pageviews. It categorically "overwhelms all other same titles." I also fail to see how WP:DABMENTION is relevant as it makes no direction to disambiguate the only existing article within a given title. Οἶδα (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dicklyon and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There is only one article that has, or might otherwise have, this title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dicklyon and Roman Spinner. Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. @Dicklyon: @Roman Spinner: @Randy Kryn: @Narky Blert: Just to be clear, everything you have thus cited is either distorted or completely irrelevant. What Dicklyon cited at WP:SUBTITLE is referring to WP:COMMONNAME. The "ambiguous" that they referred to is misinterpreted; it is not a reference to other similarly-titled works or existing articles. It is a separate discussion, in which you are specifically focusing on this book. You would be arguing that its generic subtitle "A Memoir" is part of its common name. And in turn, also arguing that "Know My Name", without the subtitle, is not the work's common name. As for Roman Spinner's opposition, WP:DABMENTION is completely irrelevant and, again, Wikipedia does not disambiguate the only existing article within a given title. You will not be able to cite a guideline which indicates to do this, because I myself have searched extensively and found absolutely nothing. I would hope this discussion is not closed because some older users misinterpreted existing guidelines. Οἶδα (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are so many songs that one of them is bound to gain an article sooner than later, and at that point this name would have to change again anyway, and the full name seems the best name as it also acts as topic descriptor. Looking at the page views, readers seem to be having no problem finding the article, and I'd bet that a large percentage of the views come from a link-clink at the legal case article, which averages over 2,500 daily views. As an aside, when I first saw the title I thought of, and misremembered, the Fight Club term 'Say his name' (which is actually "His name is Robert Paulson"). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:PTOPICs invariably collect bad links, which give wrong information to readers and are bad for the encyclopaedia. There is a whole WikiProject (WP:BPAT) dedicated to finding and fixing them. We'll never get around to looking at obscure PTOPICs, so if this is made PTOPIC any bad link is likely to remain a bad link for ever. Narky Blert (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  That is very well put. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Narky Blert: @Dicklyon: I appreciate the quick responses and the information you shared, but how is that relevant? per WP:D2D: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." This is not the case. WP:PTOPICs invariably collecting bad links is not a reason to add unnecessary disambiguation to an article title. Is there even any evidence that this is an issue in this case? First one of you cite guidelines that you misinterpreted and then all agree in oppositon per that exact misinterpretation. Now....what? I'm struggling to discern a consistent and specific rationale. You all seem to be vaguely making arguments that this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, despite not actually providing any evidence to prove that it is not. Nor that any of the other topics listed at Know My Name is notable enough for article status, let alone being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But whatever, move the article or don't. This discussion has been fundamentally disappointing. Οἶδα (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Randy Kryn: There are so many songs that one of them is bound to gain an article sooner than later, and at that point this name would have to change again anyway. Of all the songs I was able to find, not a single one comes close to meeting WP:NSONG to warrant the creation of a separate article. However, that discussion is frankly irrelevant because Wikipedia does not disambiguate existing article titles based on the speculation that another article of the same title could perhaps, potentially, possibly, maybe be created as some undetermined point in the future. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I do not believe I am. Οἶδα (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What WP actually does is pretty variable. What is your motivation in wanting to move this particular article to a more ambiguous title, when it already has a nicely precise title? Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What about redirecting 'Know My Name' to this page but continue to keep the present title? "A Memoir" seems, to some of us, a fine descriptor for the article. Best of both worlds, and saves both the baby and the bathwater. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom and subsequent discussion. Per COMMONNAME which is not challenged and per PRIMARYTOPIC because other uses on dab page don't have articles. Anticipating one or more eventually will have articles with sufficient views to unPT this one and taking that into account is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I hope the closer assesses and weighs !votes with respect to how well each is founded in policy and guidelines to get the best decision here. --В²C ☎ 01:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon. The fact that the other entries on the dab page don't have their own pages does not preclude them from consideration in a PTOPIC discussion. Their pages are the articles for the corresponding album, and if it had happened that any of those songs were the only topic on Wikipedia, there'd be a redirect at that name. Overall this seems like a solution looking for a problem, and the status quo is what we should stick with.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed on the grounds that there is no primary topic for Know My Name. But support a move of Know My Name: A Memoir to some better disambiguation. The current name Know My Name: A Memoir is not common enough to be a good natural disambiguation. Looking at Category:American memoirs the disambiguation should probably be Know My Name (book), which reverses a previous bold move see below. Know My Name (memoir) (currently a redlink and should be a redirect) also has precedents. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous move

07:42, 29 May 2020‎ Rreagan007 talk contribs block‎  83 bytes +83‎  Rreagan007 moved page Know My Name (book) to Know My Name: A Memoir over redirect: full title/natural disambiguation

I can see no discussion of this, have I missed it? Andrewa (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)