Talk:Ain't It Fun (Paramore song)

No more Ain't It Fun

As you can see here, the song "Ain't It Fun" and his video are no more to be released. It would be nice to delete this page or almost delete sentences like "It is set to be the album's third single, but no release date has yet been confirmed.", because it's not. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TA-DA!! Congratulations to who create the page months ago and to who ignored my message above, you're a genius! --Zack Tartufo (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ain't it fun (pop punk)

I'm surprised that I can't really find a review that mentions this song's pop punk roots. I can clearly hear it. Oh well... I'd be very thankful if anyone could find one to put it as a citation in the genre section of the infobox. Thanks in advance. Lighthead ^þ 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The song's chorus is pop punk-ish. Or maybe more alternative rock, I'm not sure. Either way, I found a source after a quick search for alternative rock ([1]), but haven't found one for pop punk. I might add the source I found to the article later. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2016

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: Not moved 67.87.222.82 (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Ain't It Fun (Paramore song) → Ain't It Fun – Miles more notable than the other song. This one actually charted and won a Grammy. No bad dab page needed. Unreal7 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. Lol at the Freudian typo - "no bad page needed..." Dohn joe (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oops! Unreal7 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The other song was a top 10 hit for Guns 'n' Roses in both the UK and US and clearly has a better claim for long-term significance. The Paramore song might get more page views but there has been a steady decline over the past 12 months. [2] PC78 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per PC78. Billboard Man (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of use in a WP:TWODAB situation. I don't see that either song prevails in terms of long term significance, so we may as well make it easier for the most readers to get the information they want. The Dead Boys song can be distinguished by a hat note as easily as a dab page with only 2 entries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this move 2601:541:4305:C70:3DFA:CA25:BC30:D5D5 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Opposing without giving a reason doesn't help. Unreal7 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per PC78. I think the two are roughly equal in notability and significance, and we don't give this one precedence just because it's more WP:RECENT.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support — the threshold for a TWODAB should not be held to such high standards. There is a higher chance that readers want the Paramore song, and the clicks for the other one will remain the same. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  I simply don't agree with this. A dab page is better than the wrong page IMHO if there's no primary topic, and the bar for being primary topic in a TWODAB should be the same as the bar in a THREEDAB. That's what the guidelines say, and there should be an RfC if you want to change them.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nom is incorrect in implying that the other song didn't chart, it did, in two different countries. Too soon to tell whether the newer song will achieve primary topic status. Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. If the Guns 'n' Roses cover did chart, could someone please find a source and add it to the article? I didn't see any mention of charting on the song, album, or band articles. Especially since this seems to be the basis of most of the oppose !votes.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree that this should be applied to the article, but for the purpose of this RM, it's enough to just quote a source here. http://www.australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Guns+N%27+Roses&titel=Ain%27t+It+Fun&cat=s gives chart positions for seven countries including the two previously claimed... good enough? Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    It seems it did particularly well in Norway and Sweden! It also reached number 9 on the UK charts: [3]  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

    Yes... and it charted in NZ, I was a bit surprised to find it didn't chart in Australia, it did get a lot of airplay here and G&R are very big here, they're in a style we have particularly liked over the years, arguably even developed here possibly starting with the Masters Apprentices and the many uncharted bands such as Unit Unknown (likely to stay a redlink) and even a few of mine that played similar stuff. So the charts may not always reflect notability or primary meaningness, but we don't have anything to replace them (and the chart organisations are I'm sure aware of this.) Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on the condition that a chart position table is added to the other song. Chart positions look comparable at first glance. SSTflyer 16:18, 6 August 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.