Talk:Am I Wrong
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Chart Performance
editNorway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark: "norwegian version" the rest: "english version"
What does this mean? There has never been a norwegian version of this song. The original lyrics are in English, and as far as I can tell the international release is the same as the national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:79D:6689:AFD8:3913:966C:704F:D243 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Requested moves
edit- 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. Whether this article requires further disambiguation should probably be a separate discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
– Nothing else with an article. Unreal7 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support While that is not entirely true - Am I Wrong (website) exists and for the next week so will Am I Wrong 7" vinyl - I do not agree that Am I Wrong (website) is as notable as Am I Wrong (song) and so this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You may have gotten away with speedying Am I Wrong, but in any case I'd love to see the viewing stats for both articles..--Launchballer 21:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose and move the 2014 song Am I Wrong (song) to Am I Wrong (Nico & Vinz song) per WP:SONGDAB "other songs exist" and WP:RECENT. The dab is actually a blanked stub which should have been retitled Am I Wrong (Mull Historical Society song) to preserve history, but no loss. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per IIO; -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - There are just too many other Am I Wrongs to make the song as main entry werldwayd (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. While we are at it, let's support WP:SONGDAB and move to Am I Wrong (Nico & Vinz song). I note the nominator refers to WP:PRIMARYARTICLE but not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. Unreal7 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per the points above in other opposes, including not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the possibility of the title needing further disambiguation than just "(song)" in its title. Steel1943 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per IIO and Richhoncho. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2014 (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.
Requested move 25 December 2016
edit- The following is a closed 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: Move. After over 2 weeks and a relisting, I'm closing this as a rough consensus to move based on the strength of arguments. For one thing, it's true that the cited RfC doesn't explicitly get into the question of shortened disambiguation when there are no other notable topics, but that matter is already covered by the article titles policy and general disambiguation guidelines, as well as the precedents listed below. These state than in general titles should be concise and no more precise than necessary to distinguish from other subjects. The real argument here is over whether the Nico & Vinz song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While it's certainly possible that a free-standing article is not the primary topic compared to redirects, nothing was presented suggesting that's the case here. On the other hand, evidence was presented that this song is the primary topic, and this wasn't countered. As such, the pages will be moved.--Cúchullain t/c 17:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
– At a recent RfC, it was determined that if there is nothing else with a Wikipedia article, then no dab is needed. See the moves at Listen to the Man and Over and Over Again as other examples. Unreal7 (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - the RFC question was "When a song or album is the only song or album to have a standalone article on Wikipedia, but other songs or albums of the same name are listed on the disambiguation page for that name per MOS:DABMENTION, should the article title of the notable song or album include the artist name?" - so the RFC would decide that Am I Wrong (Nico & Vinz song) should be without Nico & Vinz as just Am I Wrong (song). Not about if there is nothing else with a Wikipedia article, then no dab is needed. As to the merits of this song. Does it pass both parts of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, would like to see some evidence presented for the second part. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- It is a hugely well-known song and there is NOTHING ELSE remotely notable with this name. Those two things alone should be enough to convince anyone. Unreal7 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's rarely true that there's nothing else remotely notable for a common title. In this case Am I Wrong (Étienne de Crécy song) won video clip of the year in 2000 in France. Okay that was only a redirect to the artist, but video of the year in France is notable. I turned the redirect into a small article at 09:03, 2 January 2017. That doesn't make the question of this move redundant, but it does correct the incorrect claim above that "there is NOTHING ELSE remotely notable with this name" - there is, as searching Billboard shows. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Creating articles for marginally notable subjects solely to negate a move request, IIO? Why does that sound familiar... Unreal7 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It does happen that discussions of more recent subjects throw up other less recent subjects. That's a common occurrence (or should be) and part of why we have discussions, to see what else can be developed and how the encyclopedia can be improved. Also there being another award-winning song doesn't negate your proposal, there already was. And people of a certain age or music interest could well want to find more on that one. Sorry, that's part of the point of discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Read these words, IIO - I've told you them time and again: existence DOES NOT equate notability. This song gets 96% of pageviews, reached number 1 all around the world and is one of Spotify's most streamed songs. Primary topics are like your kryptonite - you oppose every single one. Unreal7 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- It does happen that discussions of more recent subjects throw up other less recent subjects. That's a common occurrence (or should be) and part of why we have discussions, to see what else can be developed and how the encyclopedia can be improved. Also there being another award-winning song doesn't negate your proposal, there already was. And people of a certain age or music interest could well want to find more on that one. Sorry, that's part of the point of discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Creating articles for marginally notable subjects solely to negate a move request, IIO? Why does that sound familiar... Unreal7 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's rarely true that there's nothing else remotely notable for a common title. In this case Am I Wrong (Étienne de Crécy song) won video clip of the year in 2000 in France. Okay that was only a redirect to the artist, but video of the year in France is notable. I turned the redirect into a small article at 09:03, 2 January 2017. That doesn't make the question of this move redundant, but it does correct the incorrect claim above that "there is NOTHING ELSE remotely notable with this name" - there is, as searching Billboard shows. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is a hugely well-known song and there is NOTHING ELSE remotely notable with this name. Those two things alone should be enough to convince anyone. Unreal7 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per In ictu oculi. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. SSTflyer 09:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Listen to the Man. Unreal7 (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Regardless of the RfC, this topic is clearly the primarytopic of the options on the dab page - it gets around 96% of the pageviews! Dohn joe (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment only. I see some are still asking "Does my artist look big in this?" All to the detriment of Wikipedia and music articles generally. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support. This is the clear primary topic; it's ostensibly a rather notable and popular song, and no other article even exists to challenge it. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2017 (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.
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Am I Wrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150601220338/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20150601/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20150601
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)