Talk:Caminando (Amaia Montero song)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by BrownHairedGirl in topic Requested move 09 December 2015
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 09 December 2015 edit
- 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. Clear consensus to retain the current title. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Caminando (Amaia Montero song) → Caminando – Revert recent undiscussed move. – Dohn joe (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Dohn joe: Oppose: "Caminando" can mean 2 albums or 2 songs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose and restore Caminando (disambiguation) back to baseline at Caminando (why wasn't Google Books looked at before moving the dab page?). This song doesn't appear to have done better in the charts than the other subjects, nor is it picking up significant hits in Google Books - the most notable of the dozens of topics is song and album by Ruben Blades, see dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per IIO and AA; there's another song with better referencing, and a claim of notability. This song is unreferenced and without any mention of notability. It clearly fails primacy. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. With hardly a 100 views a month, surely nobody is arguing this song is primary topic? Am I spotting a new conjugation of "bold." I am bold; you are making undiscussed moves; s/he is a vandal. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose and move Caminando (Rubén Blades album) to Caminando. The Blades album article did not exist until yesterday, when In ictu created it, obviously in response to this RM. That said, it does appear to be better referenced, and a likelier WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Caminando". Dohn joe (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- In other words you now no longer support your own RM for Amaia Montero's song but yesterday you thought it was important enough to drag the dab page out and try a technical move to get the Montero song in the "top of the pops" spot? You're being disruptive. There is no primary topic for generic names like Caminando. You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia guidelines are on titling criteria - they are based on real world reality not WP:RECENT popularity. It was laughable that we had this pointing at a barely notable recent song, but that doesn't make the much more notable album suddenly the new squatter on the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- "There is no primary topic for generic names like Caminando." There are actually hundreds of primary topics for "generic" names, especially for non-English words. See Los Rojos, Catorce, Naranjo, etc., etc. And it's usually a pretty good judge of wp:primarytopic when there's only one WP article for a title, which at the time of your move, there was. As for my current stance here, I have no problem in reassessing a situation when new facts happen. You wrote an article on a more notable topic. Thus there was new information in this question. Thus I came to a new conclusion. Isn't that how people should react? Dohn joe (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- No that isn't how people should react, you should look at the dab page, look in Google Books, and then from Google Books present a case that there is only one overwhelming topic. Doing a U-turn within 24 hours from support for one of two dozen Caminando products to another one at the same time as (it appears) you are objecting to creation of an article for the new one you support is, well... how do you think it looks? In any case you're now opposing your own proposed move, so this is moot. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again - when I see new evidence, I reassess my position. That is exactly what we should hope for (inside WP as well as out). Also - I made no proposed move. I asked an admin to carry out WP:BRD, and they refused, opening this RM in my name. Dohn joe (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm asking is what exactly prevents you from looking at Google Books before moving a dab page out and requesting an Amaia Montero song in? here is an example "Caminando is". This isn't difficult, this is what other editors, including myself obviously, are doing, why can't you do the same? It would take only one click as opposed to the 1000s of bytes wasted on RMs like this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- All I wanted was a revert, and any evidence in support of your undiscussed move. Shouldn't have been too hard a request, but this is WP, after all.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but are you the owner of Wikipedia? Why should other editors have to provide you with "evidence" for their edits, and why should you be going round overturning editors without the most cursory of checks. Have you even now clicked on the Google search link presented? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- All I wanted was a revert, and any evidence in support of your undiscussed move. Shouldn't have been too hard a request, but this is WP, after all.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm asking is what exactly prevents you from looking at Google Books before moving a dab page out and requesting an Amaia Montero song in? here is an example "Caminando is". This isn't difficult, this is what other editors, including myself obviously, are doing, why can't you do the same? It would take only one click as opposed to the 1000s of bytes wasted on RMs like this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again - when I see new evidence, I reassess my position. That is exactly what we should hope for (inside WP as well as out). Also - I made no proposed move. I asked an admin to carry out WP:BRD, and they refused, opening this RM in my name. Dohn joe (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- No that isn't how people should react, you should look at the dab page, look in Google Books, and then from Google Books present a case that there is only one overwhelming topic. Doing a U-turn within 24 hours from support for one of two dozen Caminando products to another one at the same time as (it appears) you are objecting to creation of an article for the new one you support is, well... how do you think it looks? In any case you're now opposing your own proposed move, so this is moot. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- "There is no primary topic for generic names like Caminando." There are actually hundreds of primary topics for "generic" names, especially for non-English words. See Los Rojos, Catorce, Naranjo, etc., etc. And it's usually a pretty good judge of wp:primarytopic when there's only one WP article for a title, which at the time of your move, there was. As for my current stance here, I have no problem in reassessing a situation when new facts happen. You wrote an article on a more notable topic. Thus there was new information in this question. Thus I came to a new conclusion. Isn't that how people should react? Dohn joe (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- In other words you now no longer support your own RM for Amaia Montero's song but yesterday you thought it was important enough to drag the dab page out and try a technical move to get the Montero song in the "top of the pops" spot? You're being disruptive. There is no primary topic for generic names like Caminando. You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia guidelines are on titling criteria - they are based on real world reality not WP:RECENT popularity. It was laughable that we had this pointing at a barely notable recent song, but that doesn't make the much more notable album suddenly the new squatter on the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Dohn joe. It might help if you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with an open mind and understand there is no compunction, and, more importantly in this is instance, of long-term significance (my bold), If you can change your mind overnight then there was no long-term significance, nor is there likely to be with any alternative topic. No need to hat this part of the discussion, there is a message here for all editors. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, and please nobody hat this part of the discussion, we are here, spending these bytes instead of adding to content because of Dohn joe's disagreement with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, please read the guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2015 (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.