Talk:Loving You

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Move?

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– The Elvis Presley film is the popular topic, but is it actually the primary topic? Both the film and the album with the same name are popular search terms, but I don't know if the research intends to search the song. George Ho (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Indeed. Is it "the" "primary topic", among all of those listed at the current DAB page? Hardly! There is no reason to think there exists a "primary topic" in this case. Certainly not one that is recognisable by the bare name "Loving You", even by those thoroughly familiar with films and somehow granted mystical insight that this article is about a film. Even for them, the article could turn out to be about the 2008 film. Or then again it could be one of a number of songs, or an album. Or even one of several books.

Serve the readers, not the rules.

Noetica^Tea? 11:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disingenuous to complain about rules not serving our readers, when there is no rule holding us back from doing exactly what you propose in this case. Powers ^T 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous?! My suggestion is definitely apposite in these RM discussions. See the very next vote below. It narrowly serves a rule: a rule that was intended to serve the readers, but one that fails to do so if it is applied without good sense – and the goals of this encyclopedia firmly in view. Noetica^Tea? 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not clear on what rules you think we'd be serving if this move proposal was rejected. Powers ^T 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Is it actually no longer the primary topic? No indication that this has changed is given. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recently created Loving You (Elvis Presley song) as a redirect to the album. I wonder if the readers intended to learn about the song, album, or film. ~~Right now, the statistics are very confusing, so I will not provide them at this time.~~ At educational level, one related to Elvis Presley is on par with another related. In Google film may not be primary in further pages: [1] --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Recently, Lovin' You has been redirected to the dab page, while the Minnie Riperton song was moved to Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song). For statistics, this was the song of Minnie Riperton before move to the dab page (see more). Either Loving or Lovin' has no primary topic, and the Minnie Riperton is more popular than the Elvis Presley film and the album. --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happens, Loving You is entirely unsatisfactory for our readers. Tony (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – normal disambiguation of an extremely common and ambiguous title. PRIMARYNAME is unsupportable for such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for your claims of unsupportability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Far too many articles with the title for a primary to be supposed, support definition as film and DAB move to Loving You. Judicatus (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But number of topics for the ambiguous title is not a criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with you by the standard, but with this many articles similarly named would not the change simply be common sense in terms of assisting readers? Judicatus | Talk 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To JHunterJ: As I told you, numbers for the film are very confusing, as the film is connected to the song and the album by Elvis Presley. Numbers are useless for "Christopher Knight" to determine which topic is primary; the actor himself is not primary. The same could go for the Elvis Presley song... I mean, film. You see the case? Moreover, "Lovin'" and "Loving" are not "red meat" and "Red Meat" or "Chinese rock" and "Chinese Rock". --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support; it is nearly inconceivable that the Presley film is primary over the plethora of songs and other works with the title (especially when one of the songs is the film's title song and namesake). Bare number of alternatives may not be a primary topic criterion, but when the alternatives have non-negligible popularity (as they do here), it's inappropriate to presume a primary topic without some sort of evidence. Powers ^T 14:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]