Talk:Where the Light Gets In
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Music1201 in topic Requested move 18 June 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Where the Light Gets In article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 18 June 2016 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: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Where the Light Gets In (album) → Where the Light Gets In – Target is a redirect to a non-notable subject. This is the primary topic and does not need a DAB suffix. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Where the Light Gets In is a redirect to an album. It was the lead single for that album, but is not sufficiently notable. I propose moving this article over the redirect unless there are objections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm unconvinced by a "primary topic" argument for an album that was released just a few days ago, nor would I be quick to dismiss the notability of the Primal Scream single. PC78 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I've turned the redirect into a dab page. PC78 (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is no other article so I'm sorry you don't understand that this article is the primary topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB: "The existing article does not automatically become the primary topic." There is a redirect (a redirected article, in fact) with the same title, this album released the day before yesterday is not obvioulsy more notable than a single by a significant band. PC78 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. Can you show that it's a search term? If not, we'll likely be moving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- What? Clearly a single released by a significant band (and a collaboration with another notable artist) is going to be a likely search term, if not a notable subject in itself. The page will only be moved if you can establish a concensus for doing so, in which case I suggest you try making a stronger argument and start citing some valid guidleines. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- So in short, you can't supply stats to show the number of readers clicking through that redirect to the article to read nothing about the supposed single. Clearly a "single" that isn't a likely search term. Let me help with those stats: here. There is consensus and there is no guideline for a non-notable song being considered a reasonable DAB. Hatnote is enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Concensus has not yet been reached, clearly, as the discussion is ongoing. (And why have you put quotation marks around single? It's a fact that can be supported by reliable sources, for crying out loud.) Those same page view stats don't establish the album as a primary topic either, as the article hasn't existed long enough to provide any meaningful data. I've cited a guideline above and Google searches below, I think I've already made my case and I really don't think that you have made yours, but I'm going to let it rest and move along because this has taken up too much of my time already. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because it was only released as a video. It does not appear to have been released to chart as a single. That's why it's not a likely search term. Could you please learn to spell? It's consensus not concensus. That's not a difference between any variation of English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Concensus has not yet been reached, clearly, as the discussion is ongoing. (And why have you put quotation marks around single? It's a fact that can be supported by reliable sources, for crying out loud.) Those same page view stats don't establish the album as a primary topic either, as the article hasn't existed long enough to provide any meaningful data. I've cited a guideline above and Google searches below, I think I've already made my case and I really don't think that you have made yours, but I'm going to let it rest and move along because this has taken up too much of my time already. PC78 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So in short, you can't supply stats to show the number of readers clicking through that redirect to the article to read nothing about the supposed single. Clearly a "single" that isn't a likely search term. Let me help with those stats: here. There is consensus and there is no guideline for a non-notable song being considered a reasonable DAB. Hatnote is enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- What? Clearly a single released by a significant band (and a collaboration with another notable artist) is going to be a likely search term, if not a notable subject in itself. The page will only be moved if you can establish a concensus for doing so, in which case I suggest you try making a stronger argument and start citing some valid guidleines. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. Can you show that it's a search term? If not, we'll likely be moving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB: "The existing article does not automatically become the primary topic." There is a redirect (a redirected article, in fact) with the same title, this album released the day before yesterday is not obvioulsy more notable than a single by a significant band. PC78 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support WP:TWODABS. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support hatnote is sufficient. As far as I can see, WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB is intended for cases where there are multiple notable topics by the same name as a single existing article and we expect that articles about those other topics should be created. I don't see that it applies when the only other topics by the same name are non-notable WP:DABMENTION topics which are unlikely ever to support their own articles. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support since the album is the only thing known as "Where the Light Gets In" that has an article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2016 (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.