Talk:I Bet My Life

Requested move

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: move the page to I Bet My Life, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I Bet My Life (Imagine Dragons song) → I Bet My Life – Article name has not been taken. No need to disambiguate it to "Imagine Dragons song". PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 06:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - out of interest is this song for sale or a freebie? Seeing as the Liv Boeree TV pilot wasn't picked up, inevitable that the name of artist and (song) will be hidden. As long as nom is committed to doing the clean up in 3 years time when the next song with the same title appears.... In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Yep, no need for the disambiguation if there's no other article at the name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment and question. It is correct that guidelines suggest that this *may* be moved as nominated. That's why I won't oppose. But I do have to ask the question, "why is it so important to remove the artist's name from the title of their song?" --Richhoncho (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it certainly makes it more concise. There's no reason we couldn't include more information in every title, from France (European country) to Twin Peaks (TV show) to Buckingham Palace (UK Royal residence). But there's no reason for it when disambiguation is not needed to distinguish the topic from another topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do hope your comparison with France (with a population of 66 million, a history going back a few centuries and some etc etc) with recently released, uncharted, nn song, by a barely notable artist was ironic. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I completely agree with Richhoncho's comment. Comparing removing the main piece of information "Imagine Dragons" to adding a descriptor (UK Royal residence) misses the point. UK Royal residence aren't a notable artist releasing a number of generic and less generic palaces via i-Tunes. This isn't a 1930s song where the song is notable and may have been sung by 100 artists, this a completely non notable song (since it is just now released) by one notable artist and has only inherited notability from that artist. However allmusic gives no other artist, so go ahead and remove artist name. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my point. I wasn't trying to say that these are of equal notability, obviously. I was simply pointing out that the purpose of a disambiguation is, unsurprisingly, to disambiguate. It's in no way based on how important a subject may be (except for determining a primary topic). Thus we have articles like Georgia (country) that are disambiguated and ones like MTV Video Music Award for Ringtone of the Year that are not, but this is not because of their relative importance. We always could have a descriptor, but that would be something totally different, and I'd expect the criteria for it's use would end up being too arbitrary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The point you made, whether intentionally or otherwise, is that we don't disambiguate France so we don't need to disambiguate this song. My contention is that the song title and artist name are so intertwined that there is no value in removing the artist name, whereas 99.9% of people will think of the country when seeing the word "France." IIO also makes a further valid point which relates to stability of article title. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that your view is that disambiguation should not just be disambiguation, but rather something more like a descriptor in general. I'd suggest that you propose a standard for which we could use that on the guideline talk page if you'd like, because otherwise it's going to come down to nothing more than "in my opinion this isn't notable and needs this".--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. My view is that moving song articles just to remove (or add) the artist is pointy and time wasting. "I Bet My Life" tells us nothing about the subject matter, it could be a book, a film, song, an album, so as it is where it is (and a goodly number of song titles have to be disambiguated in any event), just leave it alone. Moving, dabbing, returning and re-dabbing any article just because a certain non-compulsory guideline says so reminds me of an exercise in futility. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but where do we set the point at which a title needs to elaborate more on what the subject is? Obviously we can say that there's no need for this for France or Jesus. But what do we do for A House Not Meant to Stand or Portmeirion or Ryonbong or Ragged Old Flag or Mairzy Doats or Mairzy Doates or Noholme or Raschera or Hamsterdam? Do we just say all new articles need to have an extra descriptor? What if the page view stats are indicating that more people are aware of a topic that we consider to be inherently less known than a more important topic that is only getting a few views a day? Does it hurt to have a longer title with a non-disambiguative descriptor? I don't know. But with that logic there's no reason we couldn't have one for literally any article on Wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I am understood here. I am opposed to the present nomination and I would be opposed to a vice versa nomination. I certainly don't want to move articles unnecessarily so I don't want to move any of your suggestions above, either.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Bet My Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206192524/http://www.radioairplay.fm/RadioDate/PublicDetails/82550 to http://www.radioairplay.fm/RadioDate/PublicDetails/82550

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)