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 Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop 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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)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 Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop 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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)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.