Talk:Your Body (Christina Aguilera song)

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 for (additional) move. Miniapolis 19:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Your Body (Pretty Ricky song) may not get the same number of hits, but the title is still somewhat generic even allowing for a capital B. No harm done to anyone by making it clear either in Google headline or in the RH search box autocomplete that this is the song they are looking for. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to add further comment but don't feel particularly fussed. What I meant by "generic" was the length of the ASCAP list though at the time I didn't bother to look in detail (why would anyone) few are already mentioned in en.wp artist/album articles, one that is is

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I just don't feel that songs are a productive area to apply PRIMARYTOPIC rigidly given the gigantic churn, segmentation of the audience, and the blandness of so many titles. But again, not fussed. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose - Having (Christina Aguilera song) in the search will make it a lot easier for people looking for the article to find it, as it will automatically suggest that there is an article involving her. Much easier than type in "Your Body" and not knowing what you will get, her article may not even be what people are looking for when they search "Your Body". Songs with the same name always have the disambiguation to make them easier to find. See
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant in this case, as shown by Trouble, Happy and Skin disambiguation pages. Furthermore, this article was moved --Cúchullain ^t/c despite the fact that nearly everyone opposed it for the same reasons. How many hits an article doesn't really carry any weight, as shown in the three examples I have provided.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Iio. Let's be honest, anybody looking for the Aguilera song will find it easier if it says Aguilera. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above. It's a perfectly good title as it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. How is this a "generic" title? Would it help to have a hatnote, "For information on your body, see Human body."? --BDD (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The issue seems to be the possible confusion between Christina's song and Pretty Ricky's song. Even so, I would think that a hatnote would work just fine; there are only two articles with that name on Wikipedia. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the issue. No one is disputing this song's primacy over the other; they just want the title to be (over)precise. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (over)precise doesn't come into it. Anybody looking for a song will want to find a specific song by a certain artist, so as iio has said, the term "Your Body" is generic, and anybody looking for a specific song will find it much quicker and easier if the (sole) recording artist is named in the title. No harm is done in this manner. However renaming means every incoming wikilink has to be amended, what purpose? Furthermore, "Your Body" will be used again as a song title, it might become more "notable" than every other version, so we have move this article all over again, and again I ask, for what purpose? These discussions remind me of a tomato. An intelligent persons knows a tomato is a fruit, but a wise person knows not to put it in the fruit salad. This is also why

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is pretty useless when discussing song articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

There's that term again. What makes a title "generic"? What makes a title specific enough—a proper noun? A special character? If this is such a generic title, why are there only two articles by the name? --BDD (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generic - having no particularly distinctive quality or application (M-W). "Your body" - with 115 entries at ASCAP and 154 entries at BMI and who knows how many not registered at either it really is not distinctive. Hence my comment there is no benefit to moving this song. Let the Aguilera fans find the song they are looking for easily, and those not interested don't need to look. It's a win-win situation to leave where it is. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment I've reversed my close and relisted the discussion per request. Participants are reminded that RM discussions are closed based on quality, not quantity of the arguments, and that preferences expressed at in this
  WP:TWODABS situation so, the discussion needs to consider that issue as well. Additionally, if the RM closes as "no move" it should be moved back to the previous title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks for doing that. I reject WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as based in widespread concensus, but WP:TWODABS directly applies. I'm reviewing my position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly a thank you to Cúchullain for re-opening the debate but I do not retract my opposition to the original move. I am also reminded of
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is misleading and ignores that it is a guidance and not a policy. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• PS. I note that this article has now had three different namespaces. It will in due course (whether at the end of this RM or another) it be moved back to Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) because there will be another song, a book, a film, or something else that will be PRIMARYTOPIC for the "generic" title of "Your Body." Whatever the outcome is at this RM, I hope those that have supported the rename appreciate that ultimately you will have wasted your time and everybody else's. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, but we base disambiguation based on where readers are actually going, not where they may or may not be going in the future. And of course even if new articles were created we'd still need to determine if there's a primary topic or if another solution is needed. If the vast majority of readers are looking for one article in particular it's not helpful to run them through a disambiguation page when disambiguation can be served through a hatnote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the question which nobody has ever managed to answer is what harm is there having the words "Christina Aquilera song" in the namespace? It does not detract, it does actually signify what the article is about and is not countered by

WP:PRECISE. It's the continual moving of song articles that I object to because notability for a song is transient. This article is an obvious example. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support per
  Mia X's, so it's the primary topic.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per
  (D) 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Still oppose^{Editor already weighed in--}
  Human_development_(biology) presentation. Conceivably, someone search for this might not be culturally connected to these songs and would be bewildered at the result of following a generic link.

  Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) appears to generate more interest. This may be due to it being a relatively recent release (September 17, 2012). The article reports " 4 out of 5 stars", " debuted and peaked at number thirty-four on the Billboard Hot 100".

  Your Body (Pretty Ricky song) is a smaller article on an older song (June 15, 2005). It reached #12 on the Billboard Hot 100.

  The current page view statistics look like a clear recentism bias. As such, the page view statistics should be rejected for a project aiming for a long term historical perspective, such an encyclopedia.

  In time, moving Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) to Your Body will very likely create confusion. As the recentism fades, and the artist is less popular with time rich web browsing teenagers, it would be an oddity that this song is considered heads and shoulders above the other, and it would be moved again. This would confuse historical references to our Product. We do anticipate, every day, that Wikipedia is to be forked and reused, archived or printed. Better to leave it at Your Body (Christina Aguilera song) where it is neglibly likely to every conflict with anything unrelated.

  There is a clear advantage to disambiguating the short generic song title with the artist, much as User:Calvin999/AARON and User:Richhoncho say.

  Your body should remain a DAB page, pointing to the two song articles, and also pointing to Human body. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: We're not disambiguating for the future, we're disambiguating for now. Suppose another song named "Your Body" comes along and blows all the others out of the water. That could certainly happen someday, but since it doesn't exist now, Xtina's "Your Body" should have the primary topic for the reasons listed above. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. But you quote guidelines as if they are policy, but fail to answer the underlying question, What is the harm in leaving the article with the words Christina Aguilera song in the article namespace? Is it wrong? Is it misleading? What purpose does the removal of those two words serve? I have asked this question at several RMs and nobody has managed even attempt an answer. You might also like to cover why "Your Body" is not generic in your response. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Richhoncho: You are correct that leaving (Christina Aguliera song) isn't wrong or misleading. However, as Cúchullain noted, that is simply a matter of personal preference and isn't supported by any particular guidelines. Also, for a title that is so "generic", why are there only two articles on Wikipedia that share the name "Your Body"? I would consider a generic title to be something like "Blackout" or "Circus", where a) they are commonly used in the English language and b) have numerous articles named after it on Wikipedia. Sorry, but I just don't see a two-article disambiguation page to be a generic topic. I agree with the others that this situation falls under
  WP:TWODABS, where (in my eyes, at least) this page is the primary topic of the name and can easily direct other readers to the other article if they so desire. On top of the fact that the disambiguation page was viewed under 2800 times in the last three months. Now you tell me, what is the harm in that? WikiRedactor (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response to WikiRedActor. The harm is done by moving something that does not need moving. It is unnecessary. It's not as if there aren't 1000s of articles that are disambiguated (whether deliberately or accidentally like this one) with "artist song." I also remind you of your own words, You are correct that leaving (Christina Aguliera song) isn't wrong or misleading. Pretty good reason not to move? Richhoncho (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a preference. Since when does a small group's personal preference outweigh an established policy? And just because it works doesn't mean it's the best title. Obviously, that's how I feel here, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion otherwise. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is "guideline" and not "policy," it never has been, nor should be compulsory. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, we have different views on the situation. We've both made our points, so I'm just going to leave it at that. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jafeluv (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  WP:IAR per the opposition from April 2013 move request -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, too many people will be looking for the human body. Red Slash 09:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Oppose. As before. People will arrive here looking for human body and will be astonished. "Your Body" is not sufficiently distinctive to be a stand alone title in an encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 13 June 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.