This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. During the discussion,
Love Wins was turned into a disambiguation page, which negated my argument entirely. Therefore I see no reason to keep this open. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support for the reasons given. If/When another work with this title warrants an article, the title could be re-evaluated, but in the current environment there is no other page that would be confused with the song if its page title were unambiguated.
Songsteel (
talk)
00:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
In ictu oculi: Are you crazy? How high the song is on the charts is immaterial. The song is on five separate charts, it was just released so it's bound to go higher, and the article has plenty of reliable third-party sources. A merge would be counterproductive. Give the article a
WP:CHANCE. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
No, I'm not crazy, I'm looking here at an article primarily about the sales figures of a brief entertainment product - not a word on the song itself, and the sales figures, while not a total chart bomb indicate that this song had it's chance for 5 weeks and is heading back to nowhere.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
"Not a word on the song itself"? Then why is there a full paragraph on the writing of the song, and another full paragraph on reviews of it? Again, the song's only been out for five weeks. There is simply way too much content to merge at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)23:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, now that there is a dab page. No evidence the song is the primary meaning and lots of evidence that Bell's book is. No need, however, to merge the song.
Srnec (
talk)
23:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Irrevelant ; "The book doesn't have a page though" is not a valid argument in title discussions. The book clearly passes
WP:NBOOK, it's simply that we don't have many book editors and there is no need to
WP:FORK because, as just said, "The book doesn't have a page though" is not a valid argument in title discussions. .
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
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: Withdrawn. During the discussion,
Love Wins was turned into a disambiguation page, which negated my argument entirely. Therefore I see no reason to keep this open. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support for the reasons given. If/When another work with this title warrants an article, the title could be re-evaluated, but in the current environment there is no other page that would be confused with the song if its page title were unambiguated.
Songsteel (
talk)
00:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
In ictu oculi: Are you crazy? How high the song is on the charts is immaterial. The song is on five separate charts, it was just released so it's bound to go higher, and the article has plenty of reliable third-party sources. A merge would be counterproductive. Give the article a
WP:CHANCE. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
No, I'm not crazy, I'm looking here at an article primarily about the sales figures of a brief entertainment product - not a word on the song itself, and the sales figures, while not a total chart bomb indicate that this song had it's chance for 5 weeks and is heading back to nowhere.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
"Not a word on the song itself"? Then why is there a full paragraph on the writing of the song, and another full paragraph on reviews of it? Again, the song's only been out for five weeks. There is simply way too much content to merge at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)23:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, now that there is a dab page. No evidence the song is the primary meaning and lots of evidence that Bell's book is. No need, however, to merge the song.
Srnec (
talk)
23:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Irrevelant ; "The book doesn't have a page though" is not a valid argument in title discussions. The book clearly passes
WP:NBOOK, it's simply that we don't have many book editors and there is no need to
WP:FORK because, as just said, "The book doesn't have a page though" is not a valid argument in title discussions. .
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
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.