Talk:Eternal Flame (song)

Atomic Kitten's own page

Is it ok if I make Atomic Kitten's own page for this song, as there is enough information for a full page with Atomic Kitten's info. I could also add "Live performances" and "Procession" and much more. If no one replies soon, I'll do it anyway :P AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived 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: No consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Eternal Flame (song) → Eternal Flame – Of the items capitalised on the dab page, this one as chart hit for the Bangles and Atomic Kitten is most certainly more notable than the rest, and there's no need for disambiguation with differing capitalisation, see e.g. Glass onion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - seems the primary meaning for this capitalisation (although there are still a few internal links to Eternal Flame that would need correcting). Prouder Mary (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Prouder Mary. Unreal7 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I can far too easily see readers looking for eternal flame but using title case. I don't think case is sufficient disambiguation in this situation. Powers ^T 22:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:LtPowers and the existence of other Eternal Flames. Moving the song article would not save any time for users who type "eternal flame" and are seeking the song. They would still need to click once on the hatnote to get to the dab page and a second time to get to the song article. On the other hand, a move would inconvenience readers looking for eternal flame but using title case. —  AjaxSmack  00:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Certainly not the primary topic. We shouldn't disambiguate just by capitalisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Then move Cash Machine, Ice Cube and Black Caviar. Unreal7 (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Those are the primary topics of those terms or at least the most important encyclopedic usage. There is no article called cash machine or black caviar and ice cube is not that significant beyond the DICDEF. —  AjaxSmack  02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Significance aside, Unreal7 is correct that those are cases where we decided capitalization was sufficient disambiguation. Certainly I take your view, that sometimes it's acceptable and sometimes it's not, but Necrothesp was drawing a bright line in an uncustomary spot. I suppose Red Meat is the canonical example that Unreal7 could have mentioned. Powers ^T 14:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
        • That and Peanuts and Duck Sauce as well. Unreal7 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, Peanuts is disambiguation-by-pluralization, not -capitalization, but I suppose it's a similar concept. Powers ^T 02:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Sorry Peanuts was a bad mistake. I meant just Duck Sauce. Unreal7 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2012 (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.

Genre

Please don't revert cited material without reason. If you want to add any other genres, you need sources per WP:RS. 183.171.179.6 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Eternal Flame (song). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090312041639/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-1999.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-1999.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-singles-1999.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.austriancharts.at/2001_single.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2001
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2001
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2001
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.se/wp/wp-content/uploads/ar-20013.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Consensus is clearly opposed to the proposed move. bd2412 T 18:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Eternal Flame (song) → Eternal Flame – I see there was a previous RM on this topic in 2012, and ordinarily I would agree with the sentiments of the opposers there. For example Red Meat (comic strip), which has been moved since 2012, is far better redirecting to a dab page than the somewhat obscure comic strip. In this case, however, I think the song (number one in multiple countries and still regarded as a classic, thirty years on) is arguably on a par with the eternal flame concept in significance. It therefore seems like this really is a reasonable candidate for WP:DIFFCAPS. Page-views-wise, the song seems to enjoy a fairly consistent lead over all other topics combined too, so is probably the most sought-after topic and what is most commonly referred to when people talk of this.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• At minimum I'd point Eternal Flame to Eternal flame (disambiguation) similar to Red Meat going to Red meat (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• weak Oppose, but support redirecting Eternal Flame to Eternal flame (disambiguation) per above. No primary topic for the capitalized version, so it's safest to disambiguate. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the various topics listed on the disambiguation page (usage is not "more likely than all the other topics combined" to be sought out). I'd support moving Eternal flame (disambiguation) to Eternal Flame though, since most entries use that spelling. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Recentism. The eternal flame concept is worldwide and ages old. There's simply no way that the song can be "on a par with the eternal flame concept in significance". SteveStrummer (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but it's arguable the "eternal flame" concept isn't really a unified concept at all, which weakens its case for being the primary usage of the term. Britannica has no article on the topic, and several of our article's references don't even use the term at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. 30 years is not recentism. Unreal7 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

In the long haul, yes, it is. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary topic debates are about balancing common usage with long-term significance, and although in 100 years time the song may be gone from the memory while the flame concept lives on, we also have to consider what is likely to be sought today, particularly the title-case version.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:85AE:2112:3339:DE58 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2019 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm in a Girl Group

I'm in a Girl Group - [1] is blocked and I can't view it.

79.182.212.166 (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The link was a copyright violation. I've removed it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Article overloaded with trivia?

Am I the only one to think this? An in depth description of the moves in the Atomic Kitten video - is this really necessary? At first they didn’t want to record it, but then they heard it and did - is this really necessary? Unless there’s any objection in the next few days I’m gonna make a few deletions... Boscaswell talk 05:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No objections, so I'll make a start... Boscaswell talk 20:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)