Talk:New Year (song)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sugababesnewyearscreenshot.JPG

Image:Sugababesnewyearscreenshot.JPG is (was) being used in 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Source

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturevideo/musicvideo/9727502/Christmas-songs-advent-calendar-Day-10.-The-Sugababes-New-Year.html Till 07:39, 11 December 2012 (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. 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: page moved. Per WP:2DABS, I placed a hatnote directing readers looking for the Six by Seven song. Miniapolis 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

---

New Year (Sugababes song) → New Year (song) – Excessive disambiguation: this is the only article about a song with this name. The Six by Seven song fails notability and redirects back to the artist. Till 01:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - unless nom can link to a guideline showing (artist song) is "Excessive disambiguation." As far as I know when brackets are there, we are already in bracket land, and WP:PRECISION takes over. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You are wrong, just like you were wrong at the discussion for Talk:Run for Cover (song) RM which ended up being moved. It is the same situation, containing an unnecessarily detailed title when there is not another article about a song called 'New Year'. This is standard Wikipedia practice and is used consistently throughout Wikipedia, there is no reason for the Sugababes song to be the odd one out. Till 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • a) Whether "In ictu oculi" is "right" or "wrong" is a matter of opinion, not fact. b) Have you ever read WP:NPA and/or WP:AGF? If not, I humbly suggest you might find them useful. c) How about getting rid of the opinion noise, and providing a response that deals with the facts? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not personally attacking anybody, I'm explaining why the page should be moved Till 02:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
        • You are wrong, just like you were wrong ... - I don't see how such a statement of your opinion is either "not a personal attack", or how it "explains" anything. But we're getting way off-topic here. Hence I draw your attention to my point c) How about ... providing a response that deals with the facts? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I already did below. Till 12:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
            • (Humour me please: Where below are you referring to? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC))
• Oppose - disambiguation page lists multiple songs, so this should be properly disambiguated, and the ambiguous disambiguation form should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your vote obviously shows that you didn't bother to look at the disambiguation page, which only has two songs called "New Year", one of which is a redirect to the artist. This is the only article about a song called "New Year", (artistname song) is therefore unnecessarily detailed and should be simplified to (song). Till 04:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • a) It is not a "vote". b) Why is it necessary to be both aggressive and rude? c) The "vote" does NOT "obviously show" any such thing, (other than that you disagree with the stated opinion). d) You contradict yourself! First you say the page 'has two songs called "New Year"'. Then you say 'This is the only article about a song called "New Year"'. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't contradict myself, there may be more than 1 song with this name but this is the only one with an article. Till 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comments - New Year (disambiguation)#Songs lists four entries:

• "New Year" (Sugababes song), from the 2000 album One Touch
• "New Year" (Six by Seven song)
• "The New Year" (song), by Death Cab for Cutie from the album Transatlanticism
• "New Year's Eve" (song), by American rapper Snoop Dogg

Two of the entries are regarding a song called '"New Year" (song)', therefore they need disambiguation.

This might suggest that New Year (song) should be changed from a redirect into a dab page with two entries. Pdfpdf (talk)

• Questions

• Question1: What does where the two links point to have to do with the conversation? What you say about where they point is true, but so what? How/why is it relevant to the topic? (The FACT is: there are currently two songs called "New Year" in wikipedia.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Question2: When a third song called "New Year" gets added to wikipedia, how do you suggest it be handled? (Particularly if it is by a band that is more popular than the Sugarbabes, and/or if it sells more copies than the Sugarbabes song?) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1) Because it doesn't have an article, and 2) Wikipedia doesn't diambiguate preemtively: going by your logic, every article about a song on wikipedia should be diambiguated to Songname (artist name song) because there is a possibility of another article being created... Till 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, that sounds like a good idea. It has the advantage that all these stupid discussions and time wasted on wikipedia about "my favourite article is the most important one" would become academic. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have never even edited this article besides 1 vandalism revert months ago, so no, your theory and logic is quite off. "Stupid discussions": I think it is you whom should re-read your earlier comments about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL thank you very much. Till 01:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. It appears to me that you have taken an interpretation of my words quite different from my intentions. Perhaps I'll try again: 1) Actually, that sounds like a good idea. 2) It has the advantage that all those stupid discussions and time wasted throughout the length and breadth of the history of wikipedia about "my favourite article is the most important one" would become academic.

Is that clearer? i.e. The remark was intended as a general comment, not one specifically targetting you - I'm expecting that your "your theory and logic is quite off" statement was based on your assumption that the remark was addressed specifically and only to you? If so, I apologise if my remark was ambiguous and you interpreted it in a manner I didn't intend. Mea culpa. Now, this thread has moved way off topic, and you can blame me for that if you wish. Can we now return to the topic of discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No factually based reason presented to sufficiently justify changing the status quo. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Standard practice, overly detailed, etc etc. If it was requesting Denial (Sugababes song) to be moved to Denial (song) then I would agree, because Denial (Sevendust song) exists, but this is the only one with an article and should reflect standard practice. Till 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per recent outcomes of RMs at Run for Cover (song), Rollercoaster (song), and Fortune (song), as well as stable titles such as Chasing the Sun (song) and Under the Sun (song). In the absence of another Wikipedia article to disambiguate against, this disambiguation is overprecise. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. per all those opposing above. Perhaps those in favour in renaming might explain why a "Sugababes song" should be divorced from the words "Sugababes?" Cheers--Richhoncho (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There are 95 songs registered at BMI alone called "New Year" so assumptions of primary topic are just that, assumptions - and runs the proverbial coach and horses through WP:PRECISE. I am also reminded that those that support the move cannot answer my very honest and basic question. Perhaps those in favour in renaming might explain why a "Sugababes song" should be divorced from the words "Sugababes?" Cheers --Richhoncho (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying that Sugababes are so closely related to the topic that the term needs to be in the title? Why stop there? Why not New Year (Sugababes song from the album One Touch)? --BDD (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying the title "New Year" is so generic and commonplace that in all likelihood there will be another song with that is MORE notable than the present Sugababes version. I am also saying there is no benefit to moving the article - it is not incorrectly named. All these kind of requested moves are a complete waste of time and have more to do with fandom than any WP purpose. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per BDD. We only disambiguate against actual existing Wikipedia. I fail to see a compelling reason for why this article should be titled contrary to Wikipedia norms. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the 95 songs that exist exist, creating 94 stubs will not change reality in the universe outside wikipedia. Also, again, WP:PRECISE says the exact opposite of Till's move proposal "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". i.e. New Year (Sugababes song) isn't "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article." In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2013 (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.