Talk:Lifeless (EP)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lifelessep.jpg

Image:Lifelessep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Lifeless (EP) → Lifeless – There is no reason for a disambiguation page at Lifeless, as the only other entries are a Wiktionary entry and a red link which is not linked in any articles. Nick Number (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Lifeless" should redirect to Life, the disambiguation page can be moved to Lifeless (disambiguation). The article "life" covers lifelessness, as well. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A one-option DAB has no value. A redirect is almost as useless. There is no mention of "lifeless" in the "life" article. What people are looking for when they type a term into a search engine is not necessarily the same as the term's most common meaning in everyday speech. It's called the use–mention distinction. Kauffner (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply I hardly think you need to add every synonym for life and lifeless to the life article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles should not need a list of synonyms to make the redirect a correct redirect. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – it's hard for me to believe that people searching for "lifeless" are mostly searching for this EP. Leave the disambiguator, and leave the disambig article, which has a good redlink for a TV series that should have an article. ... I went ahead and stubbed it in, so now the redlink is blue. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Creating or expanding a DAB page to justify a disambiguator seems to be very common, and this example shows just how bogus they can be. Kauffner (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not to justify the disambiguator, but to illustrate why it's counter-productive to remove it. Why is it bogus? Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Having a DAB page does not mean you can't have a primary topic. Which topic is primary however, is at question. I still think it should be what's covered as part of the life article. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But one doesn't need to have a primary topic. That only for the case where one meaning is overwhelmingly more popular and enduring than all others. The EP probably doesn't overwhelm the 2005 crime thriller by Mark Billingham and the 2010 werewolf book by Paul Lewis and all the other uses of this common word. Dicklyon (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So your making redirects and DAB entries for them as well? The articles are what an encyclopedia is all about. Your approach makes the articles subordinate to redirect/DAB page/disambiguator paraphernalia that only a very small percentage of readers actually use. Kauffner (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that a redirect is never to occupy the primary position if there is another article with that title? We have The United States of America (band), and a redirect The United States of America, which redirects to United States, according to what you said, the band should occupy the primary name, if I'm interpreting you correctly. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You know something that I've noticed? Canadians are really good at interpreting stuff correctly. Kauffner (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by requestor. You know something that I've noticed? Ad hominem sniping doesn't contribute to rational discussion.

There are now enough blue links on the dab that this move is no longer necessary. Nick Number (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2011 (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.