Wikipedia

Talk:Love to Love You Baby (song)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 217.238.222.48 in topic Bronski beat?
Learn more about this page

Fair use rationale for Image:Love To Love You Baby (1983) (U.K.).jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Love To Love You Baby (1983) (U.K.).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Love To Love You Baby (Holland).jpg

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Love To Love You Baby (Holland).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 7 February 2015

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
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:

It seems all agree the album is not the primary topic, but there is not a consensus that the song is the primary topic. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply


– The song has more hits than the album, although numbers are the same. Actually, the numbers for the album are not very accurate. Once moved, the numbers for the album will go down. Also, the Donna Summer song itself is more significant than her album. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose removal of (song), support addition of (album) - baseline can redirect to either, but sudden flip-flops between two articles for absolute majority topic aren't greatly beneficial to readers, or dabbots. I don't know how a mobile reader could distinguish anything based on the two covers.. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Did you not read WP:TWODABS and/or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, In ictu oculi? Perhaps you can propose disambiguating ...Baby One More Time and Oops!... I Did It Again. Too bad majorities picked the songs as primary topics. --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I read WP:TWODABS it has been clarified to allow TWODABS. Also, sorry but I don't believe WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply to articles with derived notability from another article topic. There's certainly no independent notability for any album from artist, with songs beyond the Tin Pan Alley era, standards and one-hit-wonders it's a difficult case to make. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was designed for topics like Paris, not Donna Summer songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Too late! --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per IIO. (Oppose removal of (song), support addition of (album)). Yes, George Ho, I have read Primarytopic which reads "there MAY be a primarytopic" Your nomination is based on the theory you think the least number of people will be disadvantaged by switching the two articles around. My opposition is based on Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES and that NOBODY will be disadvantaged by adding "album" to the album. I note that this article has, so far, never moved and has been in the same place for eight years. Who do you think your nomination is helping? Deciding on behalf of unknown readers what they are looking for is nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia and everything to do with WikiVegasCasino. Why must we have, according to your nomination, winners and losers, when we only want readers? Titles cannot be copyrighted, so there is no reason why another song, album, film or business (!) that might use this title and become 'primarytopic' and then somebody will come along and have to nominate for RM again. Let's cut to the chase, having (song) at the end of the title disadvantages nobody except those with ocd. As we will always have to disambiguate many, many articles, many readers will expect disambiguation, so the problem becomes, not disambiguation, but those that think disambiguation can be banned from Wikipedia and only used at WikiVegasCasino. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Eight years? I wonder how many are aware of both articles of similar name. I just stumbled upon both articles recently. Most are aware of the song; the album, who knows! I don't see any other significant songs from the album. Also, there is no other subject of the same name, including a television episode, besides the song and album. Well, if you are trying to say that you support also adding "(album)", perhaps either say so or I must have misread. --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Also, WP:STABILITY redirects to MOS and refers to styling, and MOS stands for "Manual of style". --George Ho (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
There's a mistake, but read Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Eight years without change doesn't make the title stable as is. You've not proven that, even with eight years, the title for the album has been stable. Also, there are good reasons to disambiguate the album. Haven't you listened to the song? --George Ho (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't need to prove it is not stable - you need to prove it is NOT stable - that is the reason for YOUR nomination. Whether I have listened to the song is not relevant to Wikipedia, is it? FWIW I owned the album when it first came out. But that's not relevant either. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
If the stats are not enough, perhaps I'll use search engines. According to Bing, most news articles refer to the song. Most books at Google Books refer it to the song, as well. So do most journals at Google Scholar. --George Ho (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Last month's stats -v- Stability. Now show me why eight years stability should be ignored? Show me why anybody should be mislead by appropriate disambiguation? Show me why we need to avoid getting readers to the right article? Quite frankly I am working on an encyclopedia, not in a casino where the aim is to have losers. Even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says don't take the stats too seriously!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Either you take back your casino-for-losers remark, or I'll report you to ANI. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you think it was a personal attack you must take it to ANI. It wasn't, but there you go! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I had a talk with Magog the Ogre. Perhaps we both can't treat a discussion like a casino-for-losers. Actually, I missed your re-editing your vote. Let's bygones be bygones. I still think the song is more primary than the album. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have been following your discussions elsewhere. The advice you have received is correct. I repeat that that I think that "reducing the number of readers hitting the wrong article" whilst admirable, does NOT constitute a solution to the problem. The aim must be to stop readers reaching the wrong article wherever possible and primarytopic does not do this except in notable circumstances ie Paris. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2015 (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.

Requested move 13 May 2016

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Love to Love You Baby (song) → Love to Love You Baby – In the last 90 days, proven by statistics, the song has been more popular than the album. The consensus disagreed in the previous RM that the song should be the primary topic. Do the numbers prove the majority wrong? Also, the album of the same name does not have independently notable songs other than the song of the same name. Meanwhile, the disambiguation page should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose – No the numbers don't prove the majority wrong. Disambiguation is a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose / Support opposite move– First, I would argue that disambiguation is not very useful in this case, as there are only two topics with this title and they are very intimately related, so a hatnote from each article to the other should take care of business and suppress the need for a separate disambiguation page, which does not inform the reader much. I would also argue that in this case there is no obviously dominant primary topic; besides the infobox and charting data, both articles talk essentially about the same thing, i.e. the context of creating and releasing this song, especially its long version which was released in album form. So, the question is "which of the song or the album should be the first thing presented to the reader?" After reading both articles carefully, I would choose the album page, because both articles clearly state that it was the extended-play, 17-minute album version that brought success to the song and evolved into iconic status even decades later. So, I oppose the OP's requested move but I would support the opposite one, i.e. moving Love to Love You Baby (album) to Love to Love You Baby and leaving Love to Love You Baby (song) as it stands. And just add hatnotes. — JFG talk 22:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
JFG, the previous RM decided that there is no primary topic. But even the song article lists or mentions the 17-minute album version. For an album to be notable more than the song itself, there must be notable songs. Sadly, only one was released probably before the album's release. None of other songs from the album received airplay as much as the song. Also, the single version of the song was also the one that made the song notable. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:48, 17 May 2016 (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.
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Love to Love You Baby (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:

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) 21:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Love to Love You Baby (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:

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) 12:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bronski beat?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should their cover be added? 217.238.222.48 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_to_Love_You_Baby_(song)&oldid=1201570829"