Wikipedia

Talk:Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song)

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Kesha song

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't this page mention the Kesha song of the same name? The one that provides the basic music? 138.16.28.166 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Move? (December 2013)

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago46 comments12 people in discussion
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: Not moved: no consensus in 34 days; no messages in last 4 days and only 1 since 30 Dec 2013 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song) → Run Devil Run (song)

Survey

edit
I added "Girls' Generation" to identify the Korean song per WP:CRITERIA #1 #2 #3 #5, and WP:DISAMBIGUATION since coverage of the Paul McCartney song was added in 2005 to the encyclopedia by User:BGC.
Please explain the relevance of a Google Search to whether Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song) is covered in Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney album)? Even if there was only 1 Paul McCartney fan and 6 billion Girls' Generation fans the song is still covered in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Re Instead of the artist's name in the title, a hatnote pointing to Run Devil Run (album) should have been added. What coverage are you talking about? There isn't even minor coverage. There is only mention of Run Devil Run the album, not the song. Seriously, explain what you mean by "covered in article". You mean that it is a song on the album and it appears in the article's tracklist? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
As the nominator, your support is implied by the existence of the nomination. The nominator does not ordinarily also express support separately. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I originally posted this at WP:RM Techinical requests. It was contested and Anthony opened this RM, not me. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
To further address below - is Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song) WP:DISAMBIGUATION first paragraph: "covered as a minor subject" in Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney album)? Yes it is, it is given special note in Google Books because of (a) being the title track and having a story about how McCartney made the album, (b) the story of the song lyrics itself, (c) being the most notable of only 3 McCartney songs on what is a rock n roll covers album. So yes it is WP:DISAMBIGUATION first paragraph: "covered as a minor subject" in Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney album).
Additionally we currently have two articles: Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation Korean song) and Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation Japanese version), so Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song) is already competing with itself. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment Being a song on the tracklist of the album does not exactly qualify as being covered as a minor subject, perhaps way way way less than minor. That's why hatnotes exist! I agree with that, since the song has it's article, the Japanese version should have all its content over here instead. I'm still working on moving most if not all content about the Japanese version to this page and that second article to Mr. Taxi. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – The fact that someone bothered to write an article about this particular song does not make it dramatically more notable or search-worthy than the Paul McCartney song. Per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB, I generally believe that the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, the popularity of music is volatile, and new releases often appear with the same names (or strings of lyrics that might be mistaken for a name). IMHO, there is basically negative value in making song and album articles more ambiguous by removing the names of the artists from their titles. In this case, there is clearly another notable song with the same name that is covered on Wikipedia. The other song is by Paul McCartney, who is such a major artist that each of his songs is clearly notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment Notability is not established through the creation of an article, but for example because it "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." The McCartney song has not. Also per WP:SONGDAB, further disambiguation is unnecessary. It doesn't make any sense to disambiguate the article title from other titles of non-existent articles. That's why there are hatnotes, pointing to the relevant article or dab page. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Chart rankings are not sufficient to establish notability either. Chart rankings are about mere popularity. Notability requires depth of coverage in reliable sources. For example, see WP:GNG. If the topic doesn't have that, notability has not been established. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Right, JoongAng Ilbo, one of "South Korea's three biggest newspapers" isn't reliable. And neither is Korea Economic Daily. (Read that in a sarcastic tone) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 18:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps there is some depth of coverage in reliable sources, but there is very little depth to the article itself. (And I think some of the links are dead links and most or all of the remaining ones with depth are not in English – are there any with depth in English? Do those Korean newspapers have depth of coverage about the song, or are you just saying they are reliable without discussing the question of depth?) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Define "depth". Anyways, reliable sources don't have the default requirement to be in English. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 02:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
To clarify what I mean by "depth", I'll refer to WP:GNG ("independent of the subject ... addresses the topic directly and in detail ... more than a passing mention") and WP:NSONG ("independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability ... If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. ..."). Do any of the cited sources discuss the song directly in detail, outside the context of a general review of an album or artist, as more than a passing mention? For the record, I didn't say the coverage needed to be in English. I just asked if there was any coverage in English, because if there is any coverage in English, I would like to read it and try to use it to improve the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I get that. I don't know any Korean but the (very rough) Google translation of the second source seems to talk about the "new song". It talks about its lyrics, who composed it and that Kesha sang a demo. The first source (working link) seems to repeat that. This article on the Japan Times is suprisingly in English. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply


  • Second comment - the editor does not understand WP:DAB which clearly says we disambiguate by topic not title. He has been told this several times and the guideline linked. The Paul McCartney song is many times more notable in print sources than either the Japanese or Korean songs and featured on the McCartney album article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • The editor prefers not to be evaluated by other editors like this, leave your opinion to yourself please this isn't a discussion about me. If it really is that notable, how come there is no article on it? Only a redirect. Now let's talk about you. You have stated on another RM that WP:DAB specifically says "that whether other songs have an article is irrelevant". Where can I find that statement? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
The relevant guideline is the first paragraph of WP:DISAMBIGUATION:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)

Is the song Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song) covered as a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject? Is it covered as a minor subject? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Is it, though? Is it a "subject" of the article in any meaningful sense? I believe that language was inserted to clarify that sections, such as Frank Burns or Motherland, can still be primary topics. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
The song itself isn't really notable. It is not a minor subject, the track isn't even mentioned in the article. It is only shown as track # in the tracklist. Also, that statement from WP:DAB doesn't really state that whether songs have an article is irrelevant. I suggest opening up an Rfc so a sentence can be added to WP:SONGDAB specifically stating that disambiguation in the title is necessary even if the other songs titled the same aren't notable enough to warrant an article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
In ictu oculi, to use another example from my watchlist, is Sarah Palin a "minor subject covered by" Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Why or why not? If "mentioned once" is the standard for "minor subject covered by," that's going to absolutely wreak havoc on the practice of disambiguation as we know it. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
User:BDD what has this got to do with this RM? Sarah Palin has an article. A better example would be Mark Pauly Bendheim Professor. Professor of Health Care Management. Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy. whose "The Economics of Moral Hazard" American Economic Review 1967 is highly notable and led to his involvement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and he should have an article.
But is Mark Pauly covered in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act like Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song) is WP:DISAMBIGUATION first paragraph: "covered as a minor subject" in the album article. No it isn't, so why raise Sarah Palin when the question is - is the title song of a Paul McCartney album covered in the album article. Is it? What more coverage would you like added to meet a coverage requirement? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Howard Sounes Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney 2010 p.496 "... most of them obscure, with a couple of newly written tracks including the title song, 'Run Devil Run', inspired by a voodoo remedy Paul had picked up in Atlanta to ward off evildoers, thieves and liars."

Alright then, why isn't Pauly a "minor subject covered by" that article? How exactly do you make that determination? Does it only apply to songs? To title tracks? --BDD (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
I suppose why Pauly only gets a bluelink but the Paul McCartney song gets more indepth coverage is a function of the McCartney song being the reason for the albums name, and hence print sources writing about the album have fixed on the song. And yes songs tend to be more likely to be covered within album articles than health policy pundits covered within legislation articles, I suppose because they exist outside specific legislation wheras songs don't so easily detach from albums. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Remember that this is the English wikipedia so more readers listen to English-language songs than Korean-language songs.
Paul McCartney : ""Run devil run, the angels having fun Making winners out of sinners better leave before it's done"
Girl's Generation : "똑바로 해 넌 정말 Bad boy 사랑보단 호기심뿐 그 동안 난 너 땜에 깜빡 속아서 넘어간거야 너무 재미없어 매너 없어 넌"
If this was the ko.wp you'd have a point, but without evidence I can't see how you can claim that In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
You're kidding, right? The most-recognizable part of this song goes

Run devil run, run devil run run, run devil devil run run.

That's a very broad statement, saying that readers of this wiki listen to more English-language songs than Korean. (This song was originally English btw) Perhaps you are right when people type in "Dancing Queen", they're looking for the clearly more notable ABBA song rather than the Korean cover of "Mercy" by Girls' Generation. But the chance that people would look for the non-notable song by Paul McCartney over this one seems rather slim. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. This is the only song of this name with an article or anything resembling "coverage" in any article. It's disappointing that the article was moved without discussion considering how contentious such moves have been. If this discussion results in no consensus, the article should be restored to its former name as the long-standing stable version.--Cúchullain t/c 04:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The quoted Korean lyric text Google-translates into English as "Bad boy you really love rather than straight year the meantime, I'm just curious because of you're having so much fun I forgot deceived snaps you do not have manners". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – Total Last.FM popularity of the all renditions of the Mike Busbee/Alex James song (K-GG + K + J-GG = 45+18+13K = 76K), seems too close to that of the Jenny Lewis song (album + solo = 59+13K = 72K), to warrant such a demarcation.
    If the candidate-page were song oriented (all Busbee/James renditions), rather than track/single oriented and a much more significant lead could be demonstrated (say with 1st 50%+ of 2nd's popularity ahead), I would be happy to reconsider.
    NB: I consider Google Search inherently highly biased if attempting to measure the relative popularity of a double-titled big 3 track, and an indie label album track.
    (For the record, the J-pop one is a fav'e of mine.)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ref Yeah, we don't take streaming sites into consideration here--we might as well compare youtube hits. The only mention of the track is on the tracklist of Rabbit Fur Coat, just like Run Devil Run (album). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
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.

Move? (January 2014)

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion
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: not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 12:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • RM that closed as "no consensus" was about moving it back to the original stable title which should have been about moving the original title to the further disambiguated one. If this title is still contested, another RM should be opened about moving "Run Devil Run (song)" to "Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song)" (stable-->bold move, not the other way around) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose clearly overly ambiguous per the discussion that was just closed earlier the same day. And speedy close as this was just discussed as part of a more extensive discussion the same day it was renominated. It was clearly indicated there's a Paul McCartney song of the same name, for which we have an article which covers it as part of the album article, which also has the same name. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per WP:BRD. This should have happened after the BOLD move, leaving it to those who wanted a move in the first place to request a move. That BRD didn't happen in the right order is no reason to ignore it. --BDD (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • This second move request was put in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests as uncontroversial, and I changed it into discussed, as I could see that the matter is disputable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose and speedy procedural close: We just had this discussion and established that there is no consensus to move the article from its current name. The prior RM was open for more than a month, so there was plenty of opportunity to participate in that discussion (which closed on the same day this new request was inappropriately submitted as an uncontroversial technical request). If the requester doesn't like the outcome of the move request, the proper procedure is to request a move review, not submit a technical request. Nothing significant about the situation has changed since the last RM. (My non-procedural comments favoring not moving are recorded above in the prior RM discussion.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. I did not open this RM, I listed this at techical requests>revert undiscussed moves because the RM should be about moving it from the stable version to the bold move one--not the other way around. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
But submitting a technical request in order to try to override the outcome of a month-long RM is not appropriate. A technical request would have been fine if there had not been an RM. But immediately after an RM has closed (in the absence of any new developments), the proper process is a move review, not a technical request – regardless of what you think the RM should have been about. The RM was conducted to consider your suggestion to move the article from Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song) to Run Devil Run (song), and there was no consensus to take that action (and your thoughts about the undiscussed nature of the prior move were already part of that discussion), so that action should not be taken (without a move review or the passage of a substantial amount of time and formation of a new consensus). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
As there was no discussion at all to move to Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song) in the first place, so a "no consensus" move should have restored the article to its stable title. Of course a technical move wasn't the way to do that. --Cúchullain t/c 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
You may be right about that. The prior closing summary statement seems a bit confusing in that regard, although its bolded outcome declaration was that the article was "Not moved" from its current name of Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - I think we need to step back here and ask, what is the point of a title?WP:TITLE is the prime guideline here. We know there are three notable songs, two highly notable, all three are covered in articles, one has a standalone article. So whom are we helping by titling the Korean song as if the Paul McCartney and other songs don't exist? The issue here is really, does a song exist if it isn't a single? In the age when any album track is a single by virtue of iTunes and Amazon mp3, the choice of downloads is in the hands of consumers, what exists as a single and standalone song article is increasingly arbitrary. Finally Hurricane - whether a title is a standalone article or not is not important. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't know if this will help end the circus, but since the argument is "the McCartney song doesn't even have an article" I have forked it out Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song). Does that solve things? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • I hope we don't find ourselves forking articles just so they can be candidates for topic names. Per WP:DAB, it shouldn't really matter whether a topic has a separate article or is discussed within some other article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have no objections to this practice, and had the other article existed previously, I would've opposed the previous move. It's like the white hat version of WP:POINT—improving Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Our coverage of the McCartney song is improved, and the naming issue is (probably) now moot. Everyone wins. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm just saying that the article should only be forked if there is some legitimate reason for the forking other than to make it a dab candidate. Certainly, I have no objection to the forking in this case, since a sufficient amount of new and valuable material seems to have been added when performing the fork, so the stand-alone status of the new article appears appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
This has become even more of a mess, which is really saying something. We certainly shouldn't be creating dubiously notable articles (with improper citations to boot) as ex post facto justification for contentious moves that shouldn't have happened in the first place. A trout to In ictu oculi for making a clearly controversial move without discussion. A smaller trout to Raykyogrou0 for trying a technical request to sort it out despite the RM. And a huge double trout to Anthony Appleyard for not restoring the article to its long-standing stable title despite a "no consensus" close, and then making matters worse by converting the technical request into a pointless new RM without sufficient explanation. Between them, a truly epic amount of everyone's time has been wasted, for no gain to the encyclopedia.

Moving forward, I hope this RM will be closed, and all involved agree not to perform any similar song title moves without discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cúchullain, there is a gain to the encyclopedia if Users can easily find what they are looking for. Only those who have wanted to discuss the title have discussed it. The only waste to the encyclopedia is a topic which is not the only topic in either en.wikipedia or the real world (Google Books) now is titled according to WP:TITLE's criteria 1,2,3,5. In this particular case yourself and myself find ourselves with different interpretations of the lead paragraph of WP:DAB:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)

Forking shouldn't be needed. If a "topic covered by Wikipedia" is a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject it should be considered to be covered by Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
And you are welcome to make that case to the community in an RM, but moving a page without discussion when it's clearly controversial is seriously bad medicine. The last RM shows the move wouldn't have found consensus if it were put to the community, but we're stuck with it anyway. Essentially, the entire RM (to mention this second one) was meaningless. I do hope this kind of thing won't happen again.--Cúchullain t/c 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you that it would have been better if the RM had come from the status quo position. Except that you're forgetting the original article did not start partially disambiguated, it was moved without discussion "14:26, 17 March 2010‎ SKS2K6 (moved Talk:Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song) to Talk:Run Devil Run (song): no need to predab.. " In hindsight that's a long time to pass and could count as status quo. But all the same the Korean song article was created with (presumably) awareness of the 2 other target topics sung in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I don't see how it should have been anticipated that the 3 December 2013 move would be controversial. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Look, the article had the same title for nearly 4 years - and when it was moved the first time it presumably wasn't in the middle of a wave of discourse about song title disambiguation. In this case, the move never would have happened if the proper process had been followed. Considering how much discussion has been going on for similar articles, and how troublesome this particular article has become, in the future everyone should operate on the assumption that all of these moves are contentious and require a move discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • 2nd comment: With the creation Run Devil Run (Paul McCartney song) this RM (which I never intended to open) (having lost its main rationale) can be closed now. Re's@Barrel: Actually, the original RM was also "converted" into an RM from technical requests. @Oculi: Which is why hatnotes exist and (once again) hurricane doesn't have a stand-alone article because it is the same thing as a cyclone and a typhoon. Also, the song isn't "covered as a minor subject" or even discussed in the album article, it is only mentioned on the track list. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
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.
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Run Devil Run (Girls' Generation song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Run_Devil_Run_(Girls%27_Generation_song)&oldid=1205131286"