Talk:Any Way You Want It (Dave Clark Five song)

Requested move 15 December 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Any Way You Want It (The Dave Clark Five song) → Any Way You Want It (Dave Clark Five song)
• Because (The Dave Clark Five song) → Because (Dave Clark Five song)

– For consistency among Category:The Dave Clark Five albums (7 similarly disambiguated albums) and Category:The Dave Clark Five songs (3 songs, including these two). Also WP:CONCISE and MOS:THEMUSIC ("Drop the where it is awkward, as when the band name is used as a modifier"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support like what was done with Yesterday, a qualifier usually only needs to distinguish from the other songs so putting "The" isn't normally needed for grammatical readers as people will say "a Dave Clark Five" not "a The Dave Clark Five" which is normally what we are saying when we put something in brackets. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. We went through all this a couple of years ago, it caused a massive amount of argument and time wasting, and we settled on retaining the proper name of bands including The as disambig. It's not appropriate to try to relitigate that failed proposal at a local RM. If you think it's Dave Clark Five then by all means propose an RM at that page, but not here.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to remove "The" from all band disambiguation terms; it is only a suggestion that there be consistency for articles about works for this band that already has all but two of the articles titled the same way. We achieved consistency for The Chainsmokers songs and albums by renaming the outlier in the other direction, which is fine. We also have consistency for The Rolling Stones and The Beatles songs and albums, without "The" in the disambiguators. (The more global discussion was about four years ago, incidentally, and it ultimately ended with no consensus, not a consensus to always include "The".) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Yes we probably need a new RFC but as noted the result there was "not consensus" which while suggests we probably shouldn't be discussing at an individual RM it does at least say that there wasn't a consensus to keep "The". See a similar RM at Talk:Two of Us (Beatles song)#Requested move 15 February 2022. Removing the "The" doesn't seem to create ambiguity but is more concise and more grammatical. Yes I favour using full names rather than short names for subjects I think when it comes to qualifiers its not helpful to include definite articles as qualifiers can be shorter when it doesn't lead to ambiguity and is more grammatically correct. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly it though. The way to achieve consistency is to always include the name of the band in full, and I don't see why we should gradually creep items such as this away from that when there wasn't any consensus to do so. If the other Dave Clark Five songs are wrong, then move those to the full name to match this one. We know that we'll never be in a situation where we can move every single song and album away from such titles, because of the existence of bands such as The 1975, The Who and (my favourite example) The The. So better to just stick with having all of them with the full title.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. So you basically think "The" should always be included in such situations and you disagree with the current titles for songs and albums by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. This RM has no grand "creeping" ambition; you can see that I supported the Chainsmokers move in the other direction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's a reasonable choice for consistency within this band, even if there may not be a rule or standard universally agreed upon across all bands. Adumbrativus (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Adumbrativus. There's value in being WP:CONSISTENT, and even if a standard hasn't been established for large project-wide topics (e.g. works by any band in history), it can still be productive to establish consistent standards for narrow topics that happen to be within the broad topic's scope (e.g. works by one specific band). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Kiss personnel" section

I suggest removing the section titled "Kiss personnel" from this article. The main section does not address the Kiss cover at all, which is only mentioned in a bullet point among other cover versions; as such, a section boldly titled "Kiss personnel" appears incongruous to the average reader.

The (very brief) information is already largely presented in the article about the Kiss album Alive II, and in any event, there are no citations listed here for the slightly more detailed description (without which I would hesitate to simply copy the information here over to there). For all of these reasons, I would advocate simply excising this section from this article.

Any comments? [To be clear, my interest as a reader in fact is the Kiss cover; I just think this info doesn't belong in this article, unless it can be beefed up.] Al Begamut (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)