Talk:Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)

This discussion is

Talk:2 Hearts/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not meet the GA criteria. The original review was shoddy in the first place. This article is not only skinny, but it is not fully sourced (breaks #2, 2 Hearts#Release history, 2 Hearts#Track listings, 2 Hearts#Live performances, 2 Hearts#Background and release). I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 00:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delist — As the nominator said, the article's content is quite small, which doesn't really have to be much of a problem, but there's a lot of unsourced information. ℥
  start 19:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support delist - Definitely not up to standards. Candyo32 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delist – Not on par to be a GA in no way, not even a B-class article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delist Pixelyoshi (discuter) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to write why... I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not fully sourced and quite small Pixelyoshi (discuter) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article include/mention/be named after the original release of the song? If so, what should it be its name?

If this is an RM, why hasn't it been submitted as one? People who participated in a previous RM are not the only ones who might want to know that an RM discussion is happening here. I suggest to open an RM, following the instructions at

WP:RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In the very strict sense, this isn't a RM. Although a move is being requested, this is a content dispute resolution. The RM process is limited to discussion about the title, which would end in a "no consensus, suggest

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

However, RFC also may end as a "no consensus". Your new section is only poll / voting, I would like to remind you that

WP:COMMONSENSE (nearly whole article is about Kylie Minogue singel but name of article is about no-notable pre-song by Kish Mauve - where is sense?!? and also - options 2 and 3 - include "Kish Mauve" in the title of the page can break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research (using the name of the singiel by Kylie Minogue as song by Kish Mauve). Wikipedia:No original research is Wikipedia:Core content policies, you can not get a consensus to break it. The problem would not have been if the name of both songs were exactly the same, however, they are different and your arguments are insufficient here. Your willingness to change introduces very big controversy, you create WP:RM, later WP:RfC and why? Your attempt to change only introduces huge confusion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"Include "Kish Mauve" in the title of the page can break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research" -> NOR: "[It] refer[s] to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Aren't there enough sources saying that Minogue's version is a cover?

"nearly whole article is about Kylie Minogue singel but name of article is about no-notable pre-song by Kish Mauve" [sic] -> I wonder why it is written like this.

What I don't get is why you come here as I was replying BP. You have a serious problem with

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I see your links and what? no arguments! You tried to add the entire section about the not-notable song to article. Sorry, per Wikipedia:Notability, the song must meet certain requirements. If it does not meet the requirements, can enter a brief information about it, not whole articles or sections. Second case: "2 Hearts" is singel by Kylie Minogue, not by Kish Mauve (Kish Mauve uses similar but different name). Your proposal breaks the rule of Wikipedia:No original research because you try add two elements and create a new reality. You try add name of Kylie Minogue singel (2 Hearts) to text of "(Kish Mauve song), you try create false name of "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)". Also, this is breaks the rule of Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, "2 Hearts" as Kish Mauve song is not exist! I apologize for reporting serious violations of the Wikipedia rules, that you accuse me of problem with WP:BATTLE. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "You tried to add the entire section about the not-notable song to article". From Notability itself (
  WP:NOTEWORTHY
  ): "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it [...] Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." It does not matter how many times you call it "non-notable", that's merely you opinion about it. It is notable enough that Minogue herself (and other people) accepted to cover the song, and notable enough there are sources discussing the original song.
• "Your proposal breaks the rule of Wikipedia:No original research because you try add two elements and create a new reality" -> There is no such thing as "new reality" (is this the new
  "2 Hearts" was written and originally recorded by London-based electro group Kish Mauve, who gave the song to Minogue.
  "
• "I see your links and what?" That being part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kylie Minogue gives the impression of why you keep removing the content, and why you keep overprotecting the article to give an impression it is a Minouge song alone and BATTLING everytime you are here.

Considering you keep misinterpreting policies and guidelines over and over again, I have come to the conclusion that your English level is not enough to comprehend them correctly, and I suggest you to read the same policies in

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You did not understand what I wrote. I do not deny the existence of the song by Kish Mauve. However, name of song by Kish Mauve is "Two Hearts", name of singel by Kylie Minogue is "2 Hearts", the article can not have a name of "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)" beacuse no exist "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)". You can not add one element (name of Kylie Minogue singel) to other element (text of "Kish Mauve song") to create new false name of article. So, yes - your proposition breaks the

Wikipedia:Compromise - to use of a neutral name, without 'Kylie Minogue' or 'Kish Mauve' in name of article. Maybe stop pushing your version, please suggest a neutral name (or a few to choose) and stopping your WP:BATTLE?!? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

PS. I support the opinion by BarrelProof above. It would be wise to use WP:RM to change article name. Based on previous two large discussions, to solve the problem, I suggest propose neutral names without text of 'Kylie Minogue' or 'Kish Mauve'. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•To mention Kish Mauve

••Option 1: Mention Kish Mauve in the article thoroughly

The article will mention the little existing information about Kish Mauve original version. An example of the free online information available about the original song can be seen in this draft I did a few days ago.

• Support, as nominator. There is no policy or guideline that explicity disapproves the addition of such information.
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - That’s good background information for a song article, plain and simple. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We have articles about songs, not singles or versions of a song. Clearly this song is notable, so it's origin and background are relevant and must be included. I don't buy into this notion that the original version of the song must pass some other test of notability. PC78 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also
    WP:NOTEWORTHY, i.e. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". PC78 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. Well sourced and entirely relevant, since the subject of the article is the song, including it's versions; it's not about a particular release by Minogue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose - whole section for non-encyclopedic and not-notable pre-song? Nonsense. One-two sentences in contents of article is enough. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Other comments

• Comment The article should mention whatever relevant information that can be reliably sourced. I can't say a priori whether that will amount to one sentence, two sentences, or several paragraphs. (However, after doing a pretty thorough search for references the other day to see if
  talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - short mention about Kish Mauve in the article is enough. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Opposed - If the information is reliably sourced and relevant, then this is too restrictive. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comment above. As much relevant information should be included as reliable sources allow. There is simply no basis for imposing some arbitrary limit. PC78 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since I support the option above; this would actually be a bare minimum I'd support, if people argued to exclude Mauve entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Other comments

••Option 3: Include "Kish Mauve" in the title of the page

Following

• Support, as nominator. I think that
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Generally, "Run Run Run" song is an example acting on your disadvantage, both version - Tokio Hotel and Kelly Clarkson they were listed on the charts - so, this example differs from this case because "Two Hearts" by Kish Mauve is meaningless, not notable, total zero... and even has a different name than song by Kylie Minogue. Also, disambiguation page of Run Run Run show song as "Run Run Run" (Tokio Hotel / Kelly Clarkson song). This is very interesting option of name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus for the name is at
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - Per nom and my original comment in the requested move discussion. It is fundamentally not a Kylie Minogue song, it’s a cover she did. The article should be named accordingly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if only because this is consistant with the existing naming convention and with other comparable examples. I am sympathetic to
  Dindon~enwiki's argument below, but clearly this would also apply to other articles and so where do you draw the line between the notability of an original song and a cover version? Such a rule could end up being highly subjective. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We already have criteria for
    general notability guidelines. A rendition of a song (whether original or a cover) is notable if it's received significant coverage in published sources that are independent of the artist. That doesn't seem too subjective to me. Colin M (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Perhaps. But while I agree with you to a point (with regards to recognisability) I also feel that a song "belongs" to the original artist. And since the guideline specifically says to use the original artist, using an example comparable to this one, I don't feel comfortable setting a contradictory precedent here. If the guideline needs to be changed or amended then so be it, but that ought to be a separate, broader, discussion. PC78 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I can definitely understand that perspective. To be candid, I do think that particular line in
        WP:COVERSONG which I cite below) Colin M (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Support per
  we don't try to predict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose - per very long disscusion above. Article is about single of Kylie Minogue. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'll mostly repeat what I said above. Per the criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness laid out in
  talk) 21:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Using your scenario above, why would you want to begin the article in such a manner? Something like "2 Hearts" is a song orginally written and recorded by British electronic duo Kish Mauve and later re-recorded by Australian singer Kylie Minogue for her tenth studio album, X (2007). would seem more appropriate and far less confusing. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text I mentioned was a direct quote of the opening line from this proposed draft shared by User:Tbhotch, the nominator. Colin M (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The EP that this song is on is apparently not notable enough to have its own article. If Kylie had not covered the song, the article would not exist. As much information available should be included about the original version, but it's not the main topic of the article. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Other comments

••Option 4: If "Kish Mauve" is included in the title of the page, should it be titled as "Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)"?

The song was originally published as "Two Hearts" in 2005. Because of this, should the page be named as such?

• Support, since this seems to be the same as the subtopic immediately above this one. If this is just about the spelling, use the original. The next cover might call it "TwoHearts" or "Two (Hearts)" or "Two ♥s" for all we know. Use plain English per
  WP:Common sense, a general meta-principle applied to all of our decision-making.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose, as nominator. When I was looking for information about it, all the sources about the original song I could find labeled it as "2 Hearts". Due to this
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - whole article is about "2 Hearts" by Kylie Minogue, not "Two Hearts" by Kish Mauve. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I do feel there's a valid argument here but "2 Hearts" is clearly the better known and more recognisable title. PC78 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Other comments

•Returning to status quo

••Option 5: Return the status quo before the January 2019 move

In other words, to keep the Kish Mauve mentions limited and the article titled as "

• Support - name existing for years and supported by consensus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support returning to original title "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)", per arguments given in my vote on option 3.
  talk) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. The EP that the original song is on is apparently not notable enough to have its own article. If Kylie had not covered the song, the article would not exist. As much information available should be included about the original version, but it's not the main topic of the article, so therefore the title should remain 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song). — Status (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose, as nominator.
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - per nom, my above comments. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (assuming we're only talking about the article title here -- I still think the above wording is confusing). Again, I'm sympathetic to this idea but it is contrary to the existing naming convention and could set an awkward precedent for other articles. PC78 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as simply non-viable nonsense. It's not a Kylie Minogue song, its Kish Mauve song recorded and released as a single by Minogue. Just get over it. This is not FandomPedia (cf.
  WP:NOT#SOAPBOX).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I think the description of this option could be clarified. The heading "to not mention Kish Mauve" seems to contradict the text "keep the Kish Mauve mentions limited". Since options 1 and 2 already deal with the amount of text to devote to Kish Mauve in the body, maybe Option 5 should just be about keeping the title "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)"? (That's the specific part my vote is intended to be toward.)
  talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I rephrased it, as it was similar to option 2. Also option 6 is about status quo.

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

••Option 6: Return the status quo, even further: should it be titled simply 2 Hearts?

Can this be similar to 4 Minutes versus Four Minutes and keep it without disambiguation as it was before 2014?

Support

• Support return the status quo, neutral name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per
  WP:SMALLDETAILS and the above example there is ample precedent for doing this, and it neatly avoids any problematic disambiguators. PC78 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Comparing with
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Colin M (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nope. This does not actually pass muster under current interpretation of
  WP:SMALLDETAILS. Numerous discussions in the last couple of years have gone against treating such minor substitutions as valid disambiguation because a) readers often don't know what the "correct" spelling is, and b) reliable sources are not at all consistent in mimicking stylization of song titles and other pop-culture stuff's names. Furthermore, this is not an article about the Minogue single and its modified title, it's about the song, from conception to present (and it's likely that a near-future present will include more covers, since notable pop songs usually garner multiple covers over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Neutral.
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral. Was forgetting about the Toto song until reminded so the partial disambiguation means that this option isn't ideal. PC78 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•Other options

Discuss

Why you add only options of "no more than a line" and "whole section" (your draft) for data about Kish Mauve. Why there is no option "One-two sentences in contents of article"? Your option "no more than a line" is too very restrictive. Also, your description of "It was mentioned above, by two users, that a mere mention of the band in one line is enough to give context" is not true. Two users wrote nothing about one line. Please change your text to "short mention" or similar. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tbhotch: - I change this untrue sentence to "Short mention about Kish Mauve in the article" instead of your version of "no more than a line". It's about a short and concise mention about Kish Mauve, does not must to fit in only one sentence. This "two users" wrote about a short mention, not "no more than a line". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sergecross73: - due to change of sentence in option2, from too restrictive "no more than a line" with untrue description to normal version of "Short mention about Kish Mauve in the article" (in accordance with description), I am asking you to verify your vote. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No change - I don’t believe there should be any restriction if we’ve got RS backed content to add. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]