Talk:On My Way (Charlie Brown song)

Requested move 1

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: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

---

On My Way (Charlie Brown song) → On My Way (song) – None of the songs called "On My Way" have articles. Billboard Man (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose may different songs are covered as subtopics of their album articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:PDAB, and no evidence of primary topic status provided. Not having a stand-alone article is not evidence of non-notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Objection – If you read WP:PDAB more closely, it says only split up if there's more than one song. Billboard Man (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There is more than one song that is available in various different album articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Plus, look what happened to "Cups". Same situation. Billboard Man (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no requested move at talk:Cups (song) so where did that decision come from? It's just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if there's no discussion on the matter. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, WP:PDAB is guidance for FURTHER disambiguation, using the words, In such an instance, a more precise qualifier should be used. As the title space is where it is and is not misleading it might as well stay where it is. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose On My Way lists three other songs with en.wp mentions in album articles, plus 4 albums some with more songs by that name. Ambiguous disambiguation isn't helping anyone here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 17 July 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.

Requested move 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. 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. Indeed, this is the only song of this name with an article. -- tariqabjotu 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

---

On My Way (Charlie Brown song) → On My Way (song) – Normally I do not restart move requests, but after what happened with Jack (song) and Best Song Ever (song), I'm redoing this move request. It is the only song called" On My Way" with an article. Billboard Man (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:OTHERSTUFF -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this was just closed less than a fortnight ago. You can dispute closure of RM1 at WP:MRV with the OTHERSTUFF argument. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What does an invalid AfD argument have to do with anything? --BDD (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This is indeed the only article we have on a song titled "On My Way", so an {{other uses}} hatnote is the way to deal with this. The previous RM seems to have been an aberration, making the understandable mistake of choosing popular vote over policy. Recent outcomes, such as that at Talk:Best Song Ever (song)#Requested move, support this sort of move, which has the added benefit of more concise titles. Whatever your feelings about WP:PDAB, it's irrelevant here, in the absence of another article about a song titled "On My Way". --BDD (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:PDAB is only a minimum necessitated by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems around the now struck "primary album" mischief, it isn't a maximum. WP:D states that we dab by coverage not by titles, which was the point of "Not having a stand-alone article is not evidence of non-notability" by User:BarrelProof and User:Richhoncho above. And On My Way lists three other songs with en.wp mentions in album articles, plus 4 albums some with more songs by that name. Again. Ambiguous disambiguation isn't helping anyone here. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  And On My Way (song) redirect here because...? and a {{redirect}} template is not used in the article because...? Your "We care about readers" speech is boring me more and more, especially when you don't care about them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed since my last comment, not even the guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, not ambiguity in article titles as required by WP:D. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This is the only notable song called "On My Way" to have its own song page on Wikipedia. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This is the only song article by the title "On My Way" and therefore should be located at On My Way (song). WP:PDAB should not be taken into account because the parenthetical qualifier is not still ambiguous. WP:PDAB is for albums/singles/films/books' articles that have the same name. Since there is no other song article with the same name as this song, this level of disambiguation is not needed. A hatnote could be added "For other songs name On My Way" with a link to the section at On My Way. Aspects (talk) 22:15, 5 August 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.

Reaction to move result of requested move 2

That was unexpected. I can only refer to my prior remark: "Not having a stand-alone article is not evidence of non-notability." There are four other songs with this title that are identified at On My Way, so On My Way (song) seems highly ambiguous. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this was nuts. I've added to the disambig page the other three songs by the same name mentioned in WP articles; the fact that they don't have standalone articles does not make the title less ambiguous, except in the narrow minds of followers of User:Born2cycle who think that ambiguity has no meaning other than WP article name conflict. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

After a look at the article, I also see that it has no sources that establish notability. No sources discuss the song. All the sources are just chart lists that happen to include this song in the list (or are dead links or the song's video on Youtube or the artist's general web site which contains no obvious mention of the song). I have therefore tagged the article with a notability template. See also WP:Notability (music) and WP:NSONG. I've also started discussing the situation on the closer's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I have five followers out of the seven participating in this discussion alone! So per this sample about 70% of the community are "followers of User:Born2cycle who think recognize that ambiguity [on WP] has no meaning other than WP article name conflict", as stated in the first sentence of WP:D. --B2C 06:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the first sentence of WP:D? Excuse me, perhaps that comment was just bait, but I looked there, and I don't see that stated in the first sentence. The lead section there refers to terms and topics, not article titles ("... when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles..."). Article title uniqueness is only one of three criteria listed in the lead of WP:D as being important, and the other two are relevant here. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• BarrelProof, you're correct that not having a standalone article is not evidence of non-notability, but neither can we presume notability where it hasn't been demonstrated. If you object to these sorts of moves, your time may be better spent developing articles on list items, demonstrating the notability thereof, than simply arguing for your interpretation of WP:D. All hail B2C! --BDD (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Having an article is also not evidence of notability. As noted above, there are no sources in the article that establish notability for this song. In this discussion, the only obvious difference between this song and the others of the same name is that this one has an article and the others don't. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to presume notability of an article if it's never been up for deletion. If you have doubts as to an article's notability, you can be the one to suggest it. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I already tagged the article with a notability template and commented here and elsewhere about the notability issue. I thought it would be rude to immediately propose it for deletion without waiting a while to give someone a chance to resolve the tag. I disagree that the existence of an article should result in a presumption of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

After waiting approximately a week after raising questions about the notability issue here and adding a notability notification template within the article, no one has edited the article at all to address the problem (or for any other reason), so I nominated the article for deletion. Please see this article's entry in the AfD discussion area. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment only. I am not surprised by the result(the closer has moved in accordance with the comments/!votes), the fact that it was the wrong result is beyond debate. The supporters of the move rely on two assumptions that cannot be sustained, that WP:RECENT does not apply and that anybody looking for a song called "On My Way" will only be interested in the Charlie Brown single. Neither assumption allows for anybody searching for a song that was NOT recorded by the aforesaid CB and this is a song recorded by CB, so Charlie Brown song is factual and not in anyway misleading. But the present title... I daresay there are other items in the world that use the very common phrase "On My Way" which was never considered above. Those complaining after the event should have arrived on time and perhaps we can stop these expletive deleted useless moves once and forever. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Added (the closer has moved in accordance with the comments/!votes) above to show that no attack was intended on the closer. Apologies to anybody who thought this was an adverse comment on the actual closing of the RM. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Move review

I have asked for a review of this RM close, here: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August#On My Way (song). If you'd like to comment, comments on the close would be more useful than rehashing the original argument (perhaps I did a bit of that already). Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, here we are. The AfD nomination was closed as "keep". The move review was closed as "Close endorsed". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the close again, read, changes to PDAB and, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs/Article alerts and if you think there is reason for re-nomination, then do so. Furthermore, this [talkpage] might be interesting. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, zilch, zero, nada, about the song

Using the words of one commenter in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On My Way (song) more than three months ago, the article still contains "nothing, zilch, zero, nada, about the song". Should we continue to have "A song article with nothing about the song?" The article contains nothing but a collection of chart lists (and a description of what you see when watching a video). —BarrelProof (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof I was prompted by your comment to see what could be sourced on On My Way (Louis Armstrong song). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

On My Way (Lea Michele song) another new song article ... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

On My Way (song) → On My Way (Charlie Brown song) – WP:SONGDAB: On My Way (Lea Michele song), On My Way. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which says, Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. (my bold). This is not one of those "sometimes" and, as the nominator clearly states, WP:SONGDAB requires that if a song title is used more then once ALL the songs should be disambiguated by artist. There is also On My Way (Louis Armstrong song), too. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments. Yes, redirect On My Way (song) per Steel, and redirect On My Way (Charlie Brown song) to an album/Charlie Brown, it is a reasonable search term. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per above, and then the retarget the newly-created redirect On My Way (song) to On My Way#Songs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Richhoncho, or (preferably) delete the article because the article still fails WP:GNG / WP:NSONG by having no reliable sources that contain a substantial discussion of the topic, and because (in the words of the esteemed Richhoncho) the article still "has nothing, zilch, zero, nada, about the song. A song article with nothing about the song?" The article contains nothing but a collection of chart lists (and a description of what you see when watching a video). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. After the move, retarget per Steel. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:46, 26 June 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.