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

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Loving You has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

– 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]
Support Like Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song), this article belongs in a more precise namespace. People of my generation would associate more naturally with Minne Ripperton, and the generation before would associate with Elvis. But the fact that Elvis hogs this namespace is unnateral and unhelpful to the entire geography and demography of the potential WP readership. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Loving You is much more likely sought than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined. Stats:

"Loving You"

Loving You has been viewed 17016 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (disambiguation) has been viewed 1865 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (album) has been viewed 8826 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (Ole Ole Ole) has been viewed 581 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (Nina Girado song) has been viewed 403 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (Feargal Sharkey song) has been viewed 390 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (Elvis Presley song) has been viewed 58 times in the last 90 days.

Loving You (2008 film) has been viewed 910 times in the last 90 days.

-

"Lovin' You"

Lovin' You has been viewed 23288 times in the last 90 days.

Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) has been viewed 6442 times in the last 90 days.

Lovin' You (TVXQ song) has been viewed 859 times in the last 90 days.

Lovin' You (The O'Jays song) has been viewed 476 times in the last 90 days.

Lovin' You (Kristine W song) has been viewed 360 times in the last 90 days.

Lovin' You (S.E.S. song) has been viewed 212 times in the last 90 days.

-

"Luvin' You"

Luvin' You has been viewed 326 times in the last 90 days.

I'm a little uncertain how to process this data while taking into account page moves, but I don't know that it matters, either. The only numbers here that justify the proposed move are for Lovin' You, but that's now a redirect to Loving You (disambiguation), so the implications are unclear; plus, that's "Lovin' You" (with an apostrophe and no g) not "Loving You". Looking at the page views on their face, though, the only challenger for primacy is Loving You (album), but as the associated soundtrack it's so closely related to the movie that it wouldn't likely serve readers to displace the movie article. ENeville (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened in the last 90 days is becoming less relevant. Numbers have changed this month. After Lovin' You was moved to Lovin' You (Minnie Riperton song) on April 11, 2012, number for the Minnie Riperton song became about 390 views average in the last two days, while the ambiguous title "Lovin' You" ...I don't know what to say except "is making the dab page popular". Sometimes, I wonder if Elvis pronounced "Loving" as luv'n or lov'n because of his deep voice. Also, Loving You (1957 film) was created not by me and hits 106 views total this time. --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]