Talk:Taking Over Me
(Redirected from Talk:Taking Over Me (Lawson song))
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 21 June 2015
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 21 June 2015
edit- 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: Move. Cúchullain t/c 19:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Taking Over Me (Lawson song) → Taking Over Me – The Evanescence song was never released as a single and the disambiguation page is a stub. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC) 69.119.24.229 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose but this is a (Lawson song) so it isn't inconveniencing anyone to be recognizably and precisely titled. Most disambiguation pages are stubs. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment disambiguation pages are never stubs -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. This is the only WP:NOTABLE topic, and thus essentially WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by default. (The other song is just a redirect to the album article.) Dohn joe (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment all the other songs are redirects. 69.119.24.229 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nomination failed to establish that this is song is primary topic over all other entries. Also stability - this article has happily sat where it is for the past 3 years. It is not as if it is anybody else's song save for Lawson. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support - when nothing else is notable at all, there's only one outcome. Unreal7 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Disambiguation on Wikipedia has the primary purpose of aiding the readers. In this case, with only one notable topic, it is currently doing nothing but adding an inconvenience. While there who support turning a disambiguation into simply additional information in the title, this is not the purpose of the feature and has no backing in Wikipedia policy or guideline. Such a change would lead to a fairly arbitrary distinction of what articles are important enough to exist without such a "descriptor" and which are not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 29 June 2015 (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.