Talk:Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song)

notes

this is a good article with nice NPOV and coverage. i'm leaving a note here to remind myself to review it more thoroughly later and consider WP:B?, perhaps when i am more comfortable assessing for B-class. if someone else would like to do it in the meantime though, i think it at least meets some of the critera. ~ Boomur [☎] 20:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Move. We have consensus that additional disambiguation is required following the recent creation, upheld by an AfD discussion, of Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song). Forbidden Fruit (song) will redirect to the dab page. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Forbidden Fruit (song) → Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song) – The classic 1961 Nina Simone song is still the main topic in Google Books and after 50 years still 2nd to the WP:RECENT J. Cole song in Amazon mp3 sales. Not to mention all the other Forbidden Fruit songs covered in album articles. Per Hurricane and WP:DAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is the only song titled, "Forbidden Fruit" that currently has a Wikipedia article. Maybe that can change, but at this point this should be the correct title. WP:NATURAL applies. A hatnote can easily be used to point to the Nina Simone song. STATic message me! 06:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, why is the fact that this is the only song titled, "Forbidden Fruit" that currently has a Wikipedia article relevant? See Hurricane. The hatnote would have to point to the Nine Simone song, "Forbidden Fruit", a song by Roy Harper from his 1974 album Valentine, "Forbidden Fruit", a song by The Band from their 1975 album Northern Lights - Southern Cross, "Forbidden Fruit", a song by The Blow Monkeys from their 1986 album Animal Magic, "Forbidden Fruit", a song by The Pursuit of Happiness from their 1990 album One Sided Story, "Forbidden Fruit", a song by Jessica Simpson from her 2003 album In This Skin, "Forbidden Fruit", a song by Paul van Dyk from his 1996 album Seven Ways. What we'd use would be pointing to the disambiguation list. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

All that looks like to me is a bunch of album tracks that happen to have the same name of this song, yet the large majority are not notable enough for their own separate article as this one. Also at this point the most likely search term and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would be the 2013 single and not random album tracks from albums throughout the years. As I said, there would be an argument if a single other one of the songs had a Wikipedia article, but that is not the case here. STATic message me! 00:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is whether a topic is a standalone article or not relevant for disambiguation, Hurricane has no article, yet it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Forbidden Fruit has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, if dabs had primary topics then the Forbidden Fruit song articles had primary songs then the most common topic would be in fact not just be Nina Simone (I didn't spot this) but REDIRECT Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song) per. "song Forbidden Fruit" -"J. Cole" gets 48x Google Book hits. (+J. Cole gets zero hits for comparison). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: As stated at WP:DAB, what matters is what topics are covered on Wikipedia (either as the main topic covered by an article or as an additional topic covered within another article), not whether a topic is the main subject of a separate article. Moreover, per WP:NCM / WP:SONGDAB, the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums – at least when multiple songs/albums exist for a name. 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). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Manifestly there are other songs of the same title just as notable as the one in question. Tim riley (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Koala15 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Static. I'm extremely skeptical of primary topic claims for topics that don't even have their own article. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Koala15, User:BDD, which is a more reliable source, print books or Wikipedia editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Koala15, User:BDD, the point being which is a more reliable guide to what is notable; Do authors of printed books decide what is notable, or do volunteers here at Wikipedia creating articles decide what is notable?

For example if I decide to make an article on DJ Cream and I make it on the Cambodian rapper rather than the French one (or vice versa) does my decision to create one stub rather than another confer more notability on the Cambodian DJ Cream than the French DJ Cream. Am I self-deciding, following my own tail in creating and bestowing notability? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

None. The most reliable references are those that anyone can read (at any moment, any place, if possible for free, and with a long-term background of reliablility), or whose publisher or writer has a reliable background. Those that require subscription, that receive money for their service or to be bought require evidence their author or publisher is reliable as not everybody can access to them. It is quite easy to falsify offline sources, or to make others to believe the writer is reliable, but it is not the case in most circumstances: if Perez Hilton writes a book, that makes him a reliable source? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, how can a song that fails GNG be a primary topic? It will be a mystery if this page is moved. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 08:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Because of WP:RS:

Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song) = 238x

Forbidden Fruit (Nina Simone song) = mainly album but also song, "All Music Guide to Jazz: The Definitive Guide to Jazz Music 2002 "The highlights arc when she steps out of the soulful supper club style into more earthier settings, as on "House of the Rising Sun," "Forbidden Fruit," "Gin House Blues," "Work Song," and her own "Children Go Where I Send You""

Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song) = zero

If anything fails WP:GNG it is the (J. Cole song) but that would be unfair because 2013 sources are not uploaded into Google books yet. It may eventually get as many refs as the Nina Simone song, J.Cole will never come anywhere close to the Noel Coward song. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Betty is right, you have a COI with Google Books. For some reason you believe we are owned by Google, Inc., and as such we have to create every single non-notable topic because of that. It is obvious that Cole has no sources offline when it was released a few months ago. Coward song was released 100 years ago and only have 238 offline coincidences ?(I get 117 hits, BTW) That is not notability, trivial mentions[1][2][3][4][5] (or false positives[6]) are not significant coverage. Also Cole song passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, it charted and there are several references that discuss the song, giving it significant coverage. With "J.Cole will never come anywhere close to the Noel Coward song" you are inserting your point of view, and as you asked, why are you a reliable source, and if external sources are the references, "Noel Coward" [sic] song is a redirect not an WP:ARTICLE. Also, you have a COI with Coward,[7] you are listing him first despite the fact articles are listed alphabetically, not by preference of editors or readers. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a WP:COI to me. Koala15 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers I'll ignore that. If you don't understand why we are looking at Google Books results you can ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse. But this is an encyclopedia, it is based on what is notable in WP:RS, which usually means books. Then having establish WP:NOTABILITY the next step as regards titling is described in WP:TITLE and where ambiguity arises in WP:DISAMBIGUATION. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How are you new? It says your account was made in 2009. Koala15 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean you are new, hence I'm ignoring your "WP:COI" to me - you did well as a new user to find that in fact. The only conflict here could be resolved by everyone reading the first paragraph of WP:Disambiguation before participating in RMs about disambiguation. We shouldn't even be having these discussions, these kind of moves should be automatic. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Using Google Books as the only reference to what pages should be titled is ridiculous. Especially when 90% of the references are trivial and just in passing, not in depth coverage of the songs, not to mention the numerous false positives. Obviously the J. Cole song, holds the clear majority in coverage in online reliable sources. For you to claim that the song is not notable is also ridiculous, as it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. And I agree with the above posters that you have some POV and WP:COI issues. And obviously it is good we had this discussion and it was not automatic, because it is clear that the consensus is against your opinion.STATic message me! 04:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. per WP:SONGDAB which is from WP:AT, a policy. Music specifically and deliberately ignores primarytopic and it is easy to see why here. We have a classic songwriter (Coward) and a classic singer (Simone) being even considered as lesser than a this year released song. Both the other songs were released pre-internet and still get some significant coverage. Thinking more about "primarytopic" does anybody really think one of the several songs mentioned and called "Forbidden Fruit" is a contender for significant long-term primary topic? No. Of course not.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SONGDAB and WP:NCM and as discussed by Richhoncho. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Relax everyone. Obviously the move is going to be made and must be made now since Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song) now exists and is going to continue to exist. The only possible argument for not making the move now would be that the J. Cole tune is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is self-evidently not true.

What's going on is this: the way our naming conventions have shaken out, we use minimum disambiguation for songs. Not for everything, but definitely for songs. So the first article for a given song title is named either Song Name, or, if there's already an article Song Name but it's not about a song, then Song Name (song). That's the tradition. Whether it's written down in rule I don't know, but if you don't do it that way someone will move it to be that way, so written or not its the de facto rule.

If you want to write another article about a different song named "Song Name", you have to do these three steps in the correct order:

1. Create your article first, under Song Name (Somebody New song). (It can be a one-sentence stub at first if you want.)
2. Move the existing article (Song Name or Song Name (song)) to Song Name (Old Originals song).
3. Rewrite the resulting redirect (Song Name or Song Name (song)) to be a disambiguation page pointing to both songs.

(That's assuming that neither song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is very likely true: if a song it notable enough to have an article, it's pretty unlikely that another song could be so very much more notable that it'd be the primary topic. If the original article is the primary topic, omit steps 2 and 3 and add a hatnote in the original article; if your new article is the primary topic, step 3 is to file a WP:Requested Move to have your new article moved over on top of the existing redirect (at (Song Name or Song Name (song)), then add a hatnote pointing to the non-primary song.)

Editors need to follow this rule and do things in the right order. Not following this rule is what's led to the current kerfluffle and resulting hurt feelings and waste of time. Just relax. It's possibly a silly rule (that we use minimum disambiguation for songs), although there are good reasons to do it too, but at any rate it's the operative rule. If people want to change it they can take it up with an RfC at WP:Article Titles or wherever this stuff is laid out. Herostratus (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But if someone already moved the page then this requested move means absolutely nothing, so why not just close it? Koala15 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The page was moved by Ssilvers despite the ongoing RM (and not even to precisely the same title), which absolutely shouldn't've been done. Whack! --BDD (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

When I performed the page move, I was not aware of this move request, but I knew that the Noel Coward song of the same name had a Wikipedia article. It did not even occur to me that the move might be controversial, because it is so obvious that the J. Cole song is not the primary topic. Sorry for the confusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support No indication of primacy versus Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song). --BDD (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per BarrelProof.Blethering Scot 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support both WP:SONGDAB and Ssilvers. Cassianto^Talk 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, it's now just a technical move and has to be made, misunderstandings due to doing things in the wrong order is the only reason this was ever contested. Herostratus (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support both WP:SONGDAB and Ssilvers. Jack1956 (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2013 (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.

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DepressedPer (talk · contribs) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be taking the position of reviewing this article. DepressedPer (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from non-reviewer: Lead seems rather short, and I see a couple of bare URL's. Those are not good signs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• The article is not that long, the lead is proportional to the article length as it should be. I expanded it now anyways. Took me a couple seconds to get the refs too. Judging by the review, looks like those signs were wrong. STATic message me! 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I found in the article:

• Expand the lead with mention of the song it samples and the mixed reviews it got.
  •  Done Before I even started reading this, we had the same idea on what to expand the lead with. STATic message me!
• WP:OVERCITE in the Background section for Refs. 1 and 4.
  •  Done STATic message me! 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Pictures of J. Cole and Kendrick Lamar would help boost the article.
  • Not enough room for both without squishing the text, but I did add one. STATic message me! 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Ref. #4: Complex's publisher is Complex Media.
• Refs. #5 and #6 need citations.
• Ref. #8: Exclaim!'s publisher is Ian Danzig.
• Ref. #9: Now's publisher is Now Communications.
• Ref. #10: AllMusic's publisher is All Media Network.
• Ref. #11: Los Angeles Times publisher is Tribune Company.
• Ref. #12: Spin's publisher is Spin Media.
  • Everything else is  Done. STATic message me! 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, Its well-written and mentions info in the right places. It's great that your putting work into Hip hop articles. DepressedPer (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I also appreciate your work in hip hop articles, there definitely is not enough of us. STATic message me! 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks good to pass it as a GA. Congratulations! DepressedPer (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song). 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/20130927114416/http://frequencynews.com/musiclibrary_detail.cfm?LabelID=7&ArtistID=94&AlbumID=972&SingleID=3611 to http://frequencynews.com/musiclibrary_detail.cfm?LabelID=7&ArtistID=94&AlbumID=972&SingleID=3611

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) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)